Re: [css-regions] Editorial comment on content chain order

On 7/25/13 10:45 AM, "François REMY" <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com> wrote:

>The specs says:
>
>|  The children of an element or content with
>|  a specified flow may themselves have a
>|  specified flow. If an element or content
>|  has the same specified flow as one of its
>|  ancestors, it becomes the next sibling of
>|  its closest ancestor with the same specified
>|  flow.
>
>I believe the wording is wrong because:
>
>
>
> [1] children wording
>
>The text should says "descendants" and not "children".

You are correct.

>
>
>
> [2] in-flow-order of nested elements
>
>If multiple elements are in the same flow as their common nearest
>ancestor, only one can become the next sibling of this ancestor. The
>wording should be modified into:
>
>|  it becomes the next sibling of the nearest
>|  element which is part of that flow, when
>|  nodes are navigated backwards from that
>|  element
>
>and possibly reference the DOM Traversal specification.

What about:

---
it becomes a sibling of that ancestor,
following the ancestor along with
any other nodes in this situation
in DOM order.
---

>
>We could also add a note saying that the content-flow basically follows
>the DOM order.

Or perhaps we should remove this? As far as I recall there isn't a use
case for this sibling-making behavior. It's just that we had to say
*something* about what happens if you assign both a parent and a child to
the same named flow.

We could instead say that

---
The descendants of an element or content with
a specified flow may themselves have a
specified flow. If an element or content
has the same specified flow as one of its
ancestors, it moves to the named flow in
place in DOM order within its ancestor.
---


Which makes the flow-into declaration on the descendant usually have no
effect, but that might be better than the probably unexpected
sibling-making.

Rossen - what do you think?

Thanks,

Alan

Received on Thursday, 25 July 2013 20:20:42 UTC