- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 14:28:21 -0400
- To: Øyvind Stenhaug <oyvinds@opera.com>
- CC: www-style@w3.org
On 10/11/10 1:49 PM, Øyvind Stenhaug wrote: > Yeah. The word "siblings" links to a definition which is about elements > exclusively. The sentence at the end (and removed in this thread) > doesn't mention text nodes either: > > # In the above, "siblings" and "children" include both normal elements > and :before/:after pseudo-elements. > > And it's not quite the DOM tree either, otherwise really basic cases > such as this wouldn't run in because of whitespace: > > <h2>heading</h2> > <p>paragraph</p> Hmm. I remember explicitly thinking about this at the time and trying to make sure this problem didn't get introduced in the edits Brad was making (it wasn't a problem in my original proposal, since that was entirely formulated in terms of boxes), but I may well have lost track in the process. Can someone please link me to the current editor's draft? I once again seem to not have it bookmarked, and it's of course not spidered by search engines or linked anywhere sane... > I guess the easiest choice is to hack the "In the above" sentence > somehow. Given that the rendering structure isn't really defined... We do seem to be coming back to that over and over, no? ;) -Boris
Received on Monday, 11 October 2010 18:28:55 UTC