You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
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.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
* 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)
§6.7.5 in IMSC 1.0.1 currently contains the following wording:
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:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: