[whatwg] Transparent Content
Tab Atkins Jr.
jackalmage at gmail.com
Wed Oct 14 06:48:00 PDT 2009
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 8:17 AM, Yuvalik Webdesign
<postmaster at 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
>> and all its children disappear -- "kept as they are" implies kept as
>> children of the element; "[parent] element did not exist" implies the
>> 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
More information about the whatwg