On Thu, 7 Dec 2006, Cameron McCormack wrote: > > 4.4.2 Formal definition > > The diagram should be updated to use terms defined in the specification. > For example, “anonymous node” isn’t defined here.
Unfortunately it's a diagram from back in 2000, and I don't have the source anymore. Can anyone volunteer to create a new diagram with the right terminology? > When the explicit children are distributed and assigned to the content > elements in the bound element’s shadow trees, expressions specified > using the includes attribute determine which content element a given > child is to be placed under. > > s/expressions specified using the includes attribute determine > /the includes attribute determines/ > (A throwback to sXBL with XPath expressions, I guess.) Fixed. Thanks. > Each node that is to be distributed (each explicit child node) must be > assigned to a content element as follows: > > I don’t think it makes sense to talk about the distrbution of a single > node (unless that node is split up). I agree, but the term "distributed" is what is used elsewhere, and it would be as confusing to use a different term here as it would be to keep "distributed"... Any other ideas? > 3. If T contains a correct and content element that is not locked… > > s/and// Fixed. > 4. Otherwise, if this binding has no correct inherited element in its > shadow tree, then the node is not assigned to a content element, > and does not appear in the final flattened tree; stop here. > > s/;/,/ A semicolon is correct here I believe. They are two complete sentences. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
