Thanks for the feedback! i addressed some. I aim to address all of them but some are hard to fix instantly.
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 6:51 AM, Gabor Krizsanits <gkrizsan...@mozilla.com> wrote: > I've heard complains about the readability of the current import draft, > and I think the best way to improve it, if we all take some time and point > out the parts that could benefit from some polishing. Instead of filing a > dozen of tiny bugs, I just went through the spec. again and took some > notes. Some of these nits are just personal opinion, so I don't expect all > of them to be addressed but I guess it helps if I mention them. I'm not a > native English speaker so I have not tried fixing grammar mistakes. > > - import referrer section does not reflect the fact that there can be more > referrer for an import (the referrer -> one of the referrers) Added some explanation to clarify, amend some working around that. > - for master document might be easier defined as the one and only root > node of the import graph > Right. re-done in this way. > - what's up with the defaultView these days? is it shared? is it null? is > it decided? > Updated to make it null. there is no rational way to explain it being non-null. Closed https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23170. > - "imported documents don't have a browsing context" - isn't it more > precise that it's using the master documents browsing context? > Maybe. I'm wondering what is the best way to clarify that the import isn't rendered. That is the section meant to say. I agree that it isn't clear what it implies. Filed a bug for that. https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=26682 - "import dependent" is used before defined > Reordered some definition to avoid this. > - import parent/ancestor : I would define parent first and then extend it > to ancestor. also worth mentioning that the import link list are the sub > imports list for clarification > This makes sense. Rewrote the sentence in this way. > - it's extremly hard to see that script execution order is really defined, > even when I know how it is defined... figuring it out from the current spec > without any prior knowledge is... challanging to say the least. I think a > detailed walk through on the graph would be a HUGE help. By that I mean > explicitly defining the execution order for the example, and also maybe > illustrating at some stages, what is blocking what. > I agree that this is hard to see what should happen. As the script execution is defined as a part of HTML parsing, it isn't trivial to define import-specific part in isolated, clear way. As you mentioned, giving some more example-driven informal illustration would be worth having here. Filed a bug for tracking this: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=26681 > - missing link to 'simple event' > Added a link. > Gabor > > -- morrita