Thanks for the feedback!
i addressed some. I aim to address all of them but some are hard to fix

On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 6:51 AM, Gabor Krizsanits <>

> 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

> - "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.

- "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:

> - missing link to 'simple event'

Added a link.

> Gabor


Reply via email to