[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
>> element
>> and all its children disappear -- "kept as they are" implies kept as
>> children of the element; "[parent] element did not exist" implies the
>> kids
>> 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
with <unique>).


More information about the whatwg mailing list