Re: [whatwg] Transparent Content
On Wed, 14 Oct 2009, Yuvalik Webdesign wrote: I'll give it one more go. ;-) Perhaps you could leave the existing sentence, but add: In short; a transparent element must have the same content model as its parent. Or something to that effect? On Wed, 14 Oct 2009, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: That's still not accurate, though. ^_^ I mean, it's *correct*, but it's not a summarization of the existing sentence (which is implied by in short). Ian pointed out how a transparent element can have children that would match the content model of the parent, but that wouldn't be correct if simply inserted into the parent (the example with unique). On Wed, 14 Oct 2009, Yuvalik Webdesign wrote: Hmm, yes. Oh well. I give up. You see why I ended up with the complicated text that's in the spec now. :-) It's not that important anyway. And with the added example I am sure it will be ok. Ok. Cheers, -- Ian Hickson U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A/, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Re: [whatwg] Transparent Content
From: Ian Hickson Anyway, Perhaps this will do? If a transparent element were to be removed but its descendants were kept as they are, the content should remain conformant. Or: Any transparent content should be conformant as if its transparent containing element did not exist. Unfortunately both of these can be interpreted as saying that the element and all its children disappear -- kept as they are implies kept as children of the element; [parent] element did not exist implies the kids aren't in the tree, etc. But again, perhaps the added example makes things clear enough. Just trying to help. Your help is much appreciated. I'm glad the example helps. I'll give it one more go. ;-) Perhaps you could leave the existing sentence, but add: In short; a transparent element must have the same content model as its parent. Or something to that effect? Evert
Re: [whatwg] Transparent Content
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 8:17 AM, Yuvalik Webdesign postmas...@yuvalik.org wrote: From: Ian Hickson Anyway, Perhaps this will do? If a transparent element were to be removed but its descendants were kept as they are, the content should remain conformant. Or: Any transparent content should be conformant as if its transparent containing element did not exist. Unfortunately both of these can be interpreted as saying that the element and all its children disappear -- kept as they are implies kept as children of the element; [parent] element did not exist implies the kids aren't in the tree, etc. But again, perhaps the added example makes things clear enough. Just trying to help. Your help is much appreciated. I'm glad the example helps. I'll give it one more go. ;-) Perhaps you could leave the existing sentence, but add: In short; a transparent element must have the same content model as its parent. Or something to that effect? That's still not accurate, though. ^_^ I mean, it's *correct*, but it's not a summarization of the existing sentence (which is implied by in short). Ian pointed out how a transparent element can have children that would match the content model of the parent, but that wouldn't be correct if simply inserted into the parent (the example with unique). ~TJ
Re: [whatwg] Transparent Content
From: Tab Atkins Jr. Perhaps you could leave the existing sentence, but add: In short; a transparent element must have the same content model as its parent. Or something to that effect? That's still not accurate, though. ^_^ I mean, it's *correct*, but it's not a summarization of the existing sentence (which is implied by in short). Ian pointed out how a transparent element can have children that would match the content model of the parent, but that wouldn't be correct if simply inserted into the parent (the example with unique). Hmm, yes. Oh well. I give up. It's not that important anyway. And with the added example I am sure it will be ok. Evert
Re: [whatwg] Transparent Content
On Mon, 12 Oct 2009, Yuvalik Webdesign wrote: I have an argument with a colleague of mine regarding Transparent elements. He filed a bug regarding this in bugzilla and I wrote to the html5doctor about it with a question, but neither action has answered our question. The way I understand it, a Transparent Element can contain the same elements its direct parent can. The way my colleague understands it, is that a transparent element can be wrapped around any other element. The section about Transparent Content (3.2.5.2) Is not very easy to understand, any chance it could be re-phrased? Specifically this sentence: “When a content model includes a part that is transparent, those parts must not contain content that would not be conformant if all transparent elements in the tree were replaced, in their parent element, by the children in the transparent part of their content model, retaining order.” If I knew what it meant I would offer a suggestion, but I am at a loss as to understand this. On Mon, 12 Oct 2009, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: Neither of you are *quite* right, but you are much closer to correct than your colleague. A transparent element *must* contain the same kinds of elements that its direct parent can. The meaning of transparent is simply that, if you removed the element but left its children, the document would still be conforming. It does *not* mean that you can wrap a transparent element around anything, as some elements have very specific rules about what children they may have. Frex, you can't wrap an arbitrary transparent element around a td. On Mon, 12 Oct 2009, Yuvalik Webdesign wrote: So, if I understand correctly I should read: When a content model includes a part that is transparent, that part must not contain content that would not be conformant if the transparent element in the tree would be removed, while retaining the order of the tree. On Mon, 12 Oct 2009, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: Yes, that's correct. It's essentially a rewording of what's in the spec (just more focused on the element rather than the parent/children, as the current spec text is). It doesn't say that because if you remove the element, you implicitly also remove all its children (the children are part of the element in the DOM). Other than that, the conclusions above are correct. If there's another way of saying what the spec says that is technically precise but more understandable, I'd be happy to use it. In the meantime, I've added an example to explain it better. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A/, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Re: [whatwg] Transparent Content
From: Ian Hickson [mailto:i...@hixie.ch] If there's another way of saying what the spec says that is technically precise but more understandable, I'd be happy to use it. In the meantime, I've added an example to explain it better. Would this do: If a transparent element were to be replaced by an element equal to its parent while retaining its content, this content should remain conformant. Evert
Re: [whatwg] Transparent Content
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 8:53 AM, Yuvalik Webdesign postmas...@yuvalik.orgwrote: Would this do: If a transparent element were to be replaced by an element equal to its parent while retaining its content, this content should remain conformant. That would imply that another element would be inserted in the place of the transparent element. Perhaps something like If a transparent element were to be replaced by its children, the content should remain conformant. Interestingly, for a sentence that seems to be causing confusion, the equivalent code is very straight-forward and easy to understand. I don't think this section will remain confusing, but if it does going into the technical steps of how you would remove an element without removing its children would certainly clear that up.
Re: [whatwg] Transparent Content
From: Scott González [mailto:scott.gonza...@gmail.com] On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 8:53 AM, Yuvalik Webdesign postmas...@yuvalik.org wrote: Would this do: If a transparent element were to be replaced by an element equal to its parent while retaining its content, this content should remain conformant. That would imply that another element would be inserted in the place of the transparent element. Perhaps something like If a transparent element were to be replaced by its children, the content should remain conformant. Interestingly, for a sentence that seems to be causing confusion, the equivalent code is very straight-forward and easy to understand. I don't think this section will remain confusing, but if it does going into the technical steps of how you would remove an element without removing its children would certainly clear that up. were to be replaced by its children makes the sentence confusing again (although it is correct). In your proposal you suggest that the transparent content replaces the transparent element (which creates a non-logical situation), also, it doesn't make clear if you replace the element with all its children or just one at a time and in which order. I do agree that the example code does make things easier to understand and perhaps it should be kept like so. It is interesting to see how something so relatively simple is so difficult to write down in one clear sentence. Anyway, Perhaps this will do? If a transparent element were to be removed but its descendants were kept as they are, the content should remain conformant. Or: Any transparent content should be conformant as if its transparent containing element did not exist. (or something to this effect, my English is not so good that I can build such complex sentences). But again, perhaps the added example makes things clear enough. Just trying to help. Evert
Re: [whatwg] Transparent Content
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009, Yuvalik Webdesign wrote: If there's another way of saying what the spec says that is technically precise but more understandable, I'd be happy to use it. In the meantime, I've added an example to explain it better. Would this do: If a transparent element were to be replaced by an element equal to its parent while retaining its content, this content should remain conformant. That wouldn't catch a case where there was some ordering issue. For example, suppose element foo can only have one child unique, as well as many other elements. Suppose bar is transparent and can be a child of foo. Now consider: foo unique id=1/ bar unique id=2/ /bar /foo Is this conforming? If we apply your criteria: foo unique id=1/ foo unique id=2/ /foo /foo ...then yes, it appears conforming. But if we apply the spec's criteria: foo unique id=1/ unique id=2/ /foo ...then we find it is _not_ conforming. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A/, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Re: [whatwg] Transparent Content
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009, Yuvalik Webdesign wrote: Anyway, Perhaps this will do? If a transparent element were to be removed but its descendants were kept as they are, the content should remain conformant. Or: Any transparent content should be conformant as if its transparent containing element did not exist. Unfortunately both of these can be interpreted as saying that the element and all its children disappear -- kept as they are implies kept as children of the element; [parent] element did not exist implies the kids aren't in the tree, etc. But again, perhaps the added example makes things clear enough. Just trying to help. Your help is much appreciated. I'm glad the example helps. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A/, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
[whatwg] Transparent Content
I have an argument with a colleague of mine regarding Transparent elements. He filed a bug regarding this in bugzilla and I wrote to the html5doctor about it with a question, but neither action has answered our question. The way I understand it, a Transparent Element can contain the same elements its direct parent can. The way my colleague understands it, is that a transparent element can be wrapped around any other element. Which is it? Or is it something else? The section about Transparent Content (3.2.5.2) Is not very easy to understand, any chance it could be re-phrased? Specifically this sentence: “When a content model includes a part that is transparent, those parts must not contain content that would not be conformant if all transparent elements in the tree were replaced, in their parent element, by the children in the transparent part of their content model, retaining order.” If I knew what it meant I would offer a suggestion, but I am at a loss as to understand this. Evert
Re: [whatwg] Transparent Content
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 8:21 AM, Yuvalik Webdesign postmas...@yuvalik.org wrote: I have an argument with a colleague of mine regarding Transparent elements. He filed a bug regarding this in bugzilla and I wrote to the html5doctor about it with a question, but neither action has answered our question. The way I understand it, a Transparent Element can contain the same elements its direct parent can. The way my colleague understands it, is that a transparent element can be wrapped around any other element. Which is it? Or is it something else? The section about Transparent Content (3.2.5.2) Is not very easy to understand, any chance it could be re-phrased? Specifically this sentence: “When a content model includes a part that is transparent, those parts must not contain content that would not be conformant if all transparent elements in the tree were replaced, in their parent element, by the children in the transparent part of their content model, retaining order.” If I knew what it meant I would offer a suggestion, but I am at a loss as to understand this. Neither of you are *quite* right, but you are much closer to correct than your colleague. A transparent element *must* contain the same kinds of elements that its direct parent can. The meaning of transparent is simply that, if you removed the element but left its children, the document would still be conforming. It does *not* mean that you can wrap a transparent element around anything, as some elements have very specific rules about what children they may have. Frex, you can't wrap an arbitrary transparent element around a td. ~TJ
Re: [whatwg] Transparent Content
From: Tab Atkins Jr. Neither of you are *quite* right, but you are much closer to correct than your colleague. A transparent element *must* contain the same kinds of elements that its direct parent can. The meaning of transparent is simply that, if you removed the element but left its children, the document would still be conforming. It does *not* mean that you can wrap a transparent element around anything, as some elements have very specific rules about what children they may have. Frex, you can't wrap an arbitrary transparent element around a td. So, if I understand correctly I should read: When a content model includes a part that is transparent, that part must not contain content that would not be conformant if the transparent element in the tree would be removed, while retaining the order of the tree. ?
Re: [whatwg] Transparent Content
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 9:52 AM, Yuvalik Webdesign postmas...@yuvalik.org wrote: From: Tab Atkins Jr. Neither of you are *quite* right, but you are much closer to correct than your colleague. A transparent element *must* contain the same kinds of elements that its direct parent can. The meaning of transparent is simply that, if you removed the element but left its children, the document would still be conforming. It does *not* mean that you can wrap a transparent element around anything, as some elements have very specific rules about what children they may have. Frex, you can't wrap an arbitrary transparent element around a td. So, if I understand correctly I should read: When a content model includes a part that is transparent, that part must not contain content that would not be conformant if the transparent element in the tree would be removed, while retaining the order of the tree. ? Yes, that's correct. It's essentially a rewording of what's in the spec (just more focused on the element rather than the parent/children, as the current spec text is). ~TJ
[whatwg] Transparent content model element as embedded child of figure
A strict reading of the transparent content models of video and audio means that when used as the embedded content child of figure, video and audio also need exactly one embedded content child. This means that an embedded content fallback is mandatory (telescoping terminated e.g. by img). Is this intentional or does the transparent part mean transparent *or empty*? If it indeed is intentional, it should probably be noted explicitly. -- Henri Sivonen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
