Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

ittp:activeArea extent wording #288

Closed
spoeschel opened this issue Jan 10, 2018 · 1 comment
Closed

ittp:activeArea extent wording #288

spoeschel opened this issue Jan 10, 2018 · 1 comment
Assignees
Milestone

Comments

@spoeschel
Copy link

§6.7.5 in IMSC 1.0.1 currently contains the following wording:

The Active Area SHALL NOT extend outside the root container in any dimension.

However, as a consequence of the changes to the value syntax definition discussed/applied in #211, it is no longer possible to specify a ittp:activeArea value that is syntactically valid and nevertheless extends beyond the root container. So the mentioned wording is a redundancy to me (compared to the value syntax definition) and also quite confusing: It could be read as if that case - value syntactically correct, but semantically wrong - could happen and hence an implementer had to consider it.

So I would prefer to remove this wording and rather replace it by adding a NOTE to the value syntax definiton like the following:

By definition the Active Area cannot extend outside the root container in any dimension.
@spoeschel
Copy link
Author

Thank you!

@palemieux palemieux removed the pr open label Jan 29, 2018
palemieux added a commit that referenced this issue Mar 8, 2018
* Clarify fillLineGap semantics when applied to successive p elements (#263)
* Editorial tweaks (Close #271)
* Clarify forcedDisplay semantics (#284)
* Clarify the limits of Active Area per its syntax (#288)
* Clarify handling of foreign elements and attributes (#213)
* Clarify name of IMSC namespaces (#301)
* Use Root Container Region consistently (#302)
* Clarify style resolution procedure (#300)
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants