On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 8:43 AM, John Mellor <joh...@chromium.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 4:21 PM, Ryosuke Niwa <rn...@webkit.org> wrote: > >> On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 6:54 AM, John Mellor <joh...@chromium.org> wrote: >> >>> Even obvious (to some) concepts like InlineBox have subtleties, for >>> example not all inline-level elements have inline boxes. An unambiguous >>> class-level comment could make this clearer, for example: >>> >>> // An inline box represents a rectangle that occurs on a line, >>> corresponding to >>> // all or part of some RenderObject. It must be inline-level and its >>> contents >>> // must participate in its containing inline formatting context. For >>> example a >>> // non-replaced element with a 'display' value of 'inline' generates an >>> inline >>> // box, as does an anonymous inline element (text directly contained >>> inside a >>> // block container element, not inside an inline element). But atomic >>> // inline-level boxes (such as replaced inline-level elements, >>> inline-block >>> // elements, inline-table elements, and ruby elements) are not inline >>> boxes >>> // since they participate in their inline formatting context as a single >>> // opaque box; these are handled by <insert class that deals with these>. >>> // http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/REC-CSS2-20110607/visuren.html#inline-boxes >>> >> >> What's the point of adding this comment when the URL contains all the >> information? All we need is the URL. If anything, we should be describing >> the difference between the inline boxes in CSS2.1 and our implementation >> instead. >> > > That would be great! I agree that there's probably limited value in just > copy/pasting from specs like I did. Linking to the spec something is based > on and describing the differences would add a lot of value. > > >> Also, with that argument, we can start adding a WHOLE bunch of comments >> to WebCore like what DOM node is, and what "mutation" means, what "content >> attribute" is, etc... But we don't do that because we expect people to have >> some domain-specific knowledge. Of course, I'm not opposed to adding >> reference URLs as necessary since that'll be actually useful for >> some obscure concepts. >> > It's also often not obvious if the WebCore object is actually intended to map to the equivalent CSS/DOM/HTML concept. Sometimes it is and sometimes it's not. Clearly Attr/Attribute could use a why-style comment for example. >> - Ryosuke >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > webkit-dev mailing list > webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org > http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev > >
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev