Ian Hickson a écrit :
Thanks. I think section 3.7 "Binding Inheritance" is becoming clearer every day. I think it could be improved with the following changes: - The text in the example uses the terms "explicit inheritance chain" and "implicit inheritance chain" which are the appropriate terms. I think you should introduce them at the beginning of the section and then use them consistently. I suggest replacing the first paragraph: "Bindings can inherit from each other explicitly using the extends
attribute.They can also inherit from each other implicitly if
multiple bindings are attached to an element."with "Bindings can inherit from each other explicitly using the extends
attribute, thus creating explicit
binding inheritance
chains. They can also inherit from each other implicitly
if multiple bindings are attached to an element, thus creating the implicit binding inheritance
chain."- You should also change replace in the text below the figure: "with the implicit inheritance chain going down each explicit inheritance chain sequentially." with "with the implicit inheritance chain going down each explicit inheritance chain*s* sequentially." - Then, you should use "The base binding (of the implicit inheritance chain) is the binding ..." instead of "A base binding is a binding ..." in the definition of base binding. - Similarly, use "The base binding of an explicit inheritance chain the binding" - Similarly, use "The most derived binding is the binding that no other binding inherits from." So do I understand correctly from the algorithm that a Node can be assigned to a locked content only using the xblSetInsertionPoint method ?From this diagram, I understood a bit more the 'locked' attribute. I Each explicit child can only be assigned to aI see from that example that there are 2 'content' elements marked with a *, meaning that C is assigned to both content elements. I don't see the use for this possibility to assign a node to multiple content elements, since in the end, a Node can appear only once in the final flatten tree (is that correct?). If there is no use, I don't see the point of mentioning it, it is quite confusing and I would remove the '*' on content*/R. Thanks for the clarification. It's better. I think it would be clearer if a Node could be assigned to, at most, one content element in the binding implicit inheritance chain. That would mean unassign all unlocked content elements from all bindings and not just for the current binding. Regards, Cyril |
- [XBL] content element and locked Cyril Concolato
- RE: [XBL] content element and locked Marcos Caceres
- RE: [XBL] content element and locked Ian Hickson
- Re: [XBL] content element and locked Ian Hickson
- Re: [XBL] content element and locked Ian Hickson
- Re: [XBL] content element and locked Cyril Concolato
- Re: [XBL] content element and locked Ian Hickson
- Re: [XBL] content element and locked Cyril Concolato
- Re: [XBL] content element and lo... Ian Hickson
- Re: [XBL] content element an... Cyril Concolato
- Re: [XBL] content element an... Ian Hickson
- Re: [XBL] content element and locked Cyril Concolato
- Re: [XBL] content element and locked Ian Hickson
- Re: [XBL] content element and locked Ian Hickson
