Re: [whatwg] Editorial comment r/e summary element
On Wed, 21 Sep 2011, Sergiusz Wolicki wrote: I am reading: Contexts in which this element can be used: As the first child of a detailshttp://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/interactive-elements.html#the-details-elementelement. My feeling is that unconnected DOM elements in a script are not really an HTML document but only its building blocks (bricks). Therefore, any parent-child relationship required by the spec does not apply until the fragments are connected together to form an HTML document to be interpreted (rendered) by a user agent. Therefore, if if any applies to fragments only and not to complete documents, then I feel, it should not be present in the spec. The specification's requirements apply to all HTML elements, whether in a document or not, whenever scripts are not executing. It also applies to non-conforming documents (e.g. documents where the parent element of a summary is not a details). The problem is that if we add if any, allowing no parent, then we should also define what summary means if there is no parent. The element doesn't mean anything when there's no parent, because if there's no parent, or if the parent is not a details element, the only line in the spec that says that the summary element represents anything does not apply (because of the if any). In short: if any should not be added if it is only meant to allow an element to be represented separately as DOM in a script, because, if I understand correctly, such representation is allowed for any HTML element. If I just omit the if any, then the specification's definition would make no sense in the case where the summary element has no parent or its parent is not a details element, as it would refer to an element that does not exist. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A/, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Re: [whatwg] Editorial comment r/e summary element
On Tue, 20 Sep 2011, Bruce Lawson wrote: Fair dames and damsels of the list Consider http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/interactive-elements.html#the-summary-element: The summary element represents a summary, caption, or legend for the rest of the contents of the summary element's parent details element, if any. I read if any to mean there may or may not be a summary, caption or legend. However, a questioner to HTML5 Doctor believes that summary can be used outside details, reading if any to sugest that there may not be a summary element's parent details element. (She wants to use summary at the top of an article to summarise its contents, because the ambiguous prose I quote suggests that a parent details element is optional). It means that there might not be a details parent. The only way this could happen in a conformance situation is if the legend didn't have a parent at all, which is only possible in unconnected DOM fragments in script. Can we remove this ambiguity? The summary element represents an optional summary, caption, or legend for the rest of the contents of the summary element's parent details element would work. The summary isn't optional (summary is a required child of details). The if any style is used all over the spec; I'm not sure how to make it clearer without dramatically increasing the verbosity, which I would like to do to avoid drawing attention to aspects of the spec that are of relatively little practical importance. For example, replacing it with if the element has such a parent changes this minor point from a two-word side note to a whole sentence fragment taking a quarter of the sentence. Anyone have any suggestions? -- Ian Hickson U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A/, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Re: [whatwg] Editorial comment r/e summary element
I am reading: Contexts in which this element can be used: As the first child of a detailshttp://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/interactive-elements.html#the-details-elementelement. My feeling is that unconnected DOM elements in a script are not really an HTML document but only its building blocks (bricks). Therefore, any parent-child relationship required by the spec does not apply until the fragments are connected together to form an HTML document to be interpreted (rendered) by a user agent. Therefore, if if any applies to fragments only and not to complete documents, then I feel, it should not be present in the spec. The problem is that if we add if any, allowing no parent, then we should also define what summary means if there is no parent. In short: if any should not be added if it is only meant to allow an element to be represented separately as DOM in a script, because, if I understand correctly, such representation is allowed for any HTML element. -- S5sz On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 10:10 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote: On Tue, 20 Sep 2011, Bruce Lawson wrote: Fair dames and damsels of the list Consider http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/interactive-elements.html#the-summary-element : The summary element represents a summary, caption, or legend for the rest of the contents of the summary element's parent details element, if any. I read if any to mean there may or may not be a summary, caption or legend. However, a questioner to HTML5 Doctor believes that summary can be used outside details, reading if any to sugest that there may not be a summary element's parent details element. (She wants to use summary at the top of an article to summarise its contents, because the ambiguous prose I quote suggests that a parent details element is optional). It means that there might not be a details parent. The only way this could happen in a conformance situation is if the legend didn't have a parent at all, which is only possible in unconnected DOM fragments in script. Can we remove this ambiguity? The summary element represents an optional summary, caption, or legend for the rest of the contents of the summary element's parent details element would work. The summary isn't optional (summary is a required child of details). The if any style is used all over the spec; I'm not sure how to make it clearer without dramatically increasing the verbosity, which I would like to do to avoid drawing attention to aspects of the spec that are of relatively little practical importance. For example, replacing it with if the element has such a parent changes this minor point from a two-word side note to a whole sentence fragment taking a quarter of the sentence. Anyone have any suggestions? -- Ian Hickson U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A/, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
