From: Scott González [mailto:[email protected]]
>On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 8:53 AM, Yuvalik Webdesign <[email protected]> >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
