-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 16
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
Clarify that descendants of conditionally excluded elements cannot be included #926
Comments
On the basis that this change is needed to clarify an ambiguity present before, it counts as a substantive change in regards to the Process. |
I do not agree there is either an existing ambiguity or a need to suppose one. In particular, the value of @condition is never defined as conditionally including an element, only conditionally excluding an element. Conditional inclusion is defined as the negation of exclusion. Therefore, it is not possible to construe a non-false value of
|
@skynavga That'd be fine if it were what the spec says, but it is not. The first line of the section on the condition attribute says:
This suggests, at the very least, that the condition attribute can be used to conditionally include an element. Further, the text:
can easily be read as "unless a descendant element's |
@nigelmegitt I think it is pretty clear from the definitions under [conditionally excluded (included)] make it clear that the interpretation you are worried about does not apply:
However, I agree that the language under |
@skynavga That's coming over as slightly rude, to be honest. Why not just take what has already been done in the pull request and comment on that? I'm happy to modify it in response to suggestions. |
@nigelmegitt posted new PR #929 that handles this editorially |
@nigelmegitt because we are not going to obtain quick resolution when I comment that each and every change you proposed is not correct, not desired, or not relevant to the original issue (e.g., you added a lengthy additional example in a note); doing a separate, extremely simple, editorial PR makes the most sense; rudeness has nothing to do with it |
As the chair and editor are apparently at an impasse on this issue, it cannot be processed in time for CR3 CfC; however, we can process it as an editorial change during PR (if desired). Otherwise, we will need to push out to ttml.next. In the mean time, I am changing the milestone on this to PR, on the assumption that #929 is an editorial fix (which I claim it to be). |
Merged early per WG resolution to move forward with CR3 CfC. |
See https://github.com/w3c/ttml2/pull/900/files/204ff46225830b23a2c6a4ca7f147cbdd68956d6..9c9a3efb6b2e938d098eff732dcdbca45f791943#r204399436
Need to clarify that the text in 8.2.1 condition (attribute):
does not mean that a descendant with a
condition
attribute which evaluates totrue
becomes conditionally included.Also remove the qualifier "conditionally excluded" before "descendants" in the note introduced by #900 at the end of §8.2.1.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: