21754 2013-04-19 18:42:55 +0000 [HTML] editorial: un-referenced step labels 2013-07-15 22:56:21 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified WHATWG HTML unspecified All All CLOSED FIXED P2 minor Unsorted 1 jmdyck ian gphemsley ian mike contributor oldest_to_newest 86396 0 jmdyck 2013-04-19 18:42:55 +0000 Certain step-labels appear to be superfluous, as they are never referenced: 4.8.10.5 "Loading the media resource" the 'resource selection algorithm', step 9: Process candidate: (Note that step 9 has two steps labeled "Process candidate". It's the first one that isn't referenced.) 4.8.11.2.4 "Line styles", the 'trace a path' algorithm, step 19: Dash Off: 9.2.4 "Processing model" step 10: Event loop: (At least, I'm pretty sure it isn't referenced.) 86403 1 ian 2013-04-19 23:49:35 +0000 The first one is just confusing, so I removed it. The other two (and the first one as well, in theory, though in practice it confuses matters as noted above) are intentional. The first ("dash off") is there for symmetry with "dash on". The other one is there because having an event loop is so key to the processing model of HTML and so on that having it clearly labeled as the relevant step is helpful for discussions of that part of the spec. 86411 2 jmdyck 2013-04-20 07:36:03 +0000 (In reply to comment #1) > The first one is just confusing, so I removed it. Of the two steps labelled "Process candidate", you removed the label from the *second*, which surprises me. Formerly, the substep that says: Otherwise, jump back to the /process candidate/ step. would presumably have been interpreted as referring to the 15th-earlier substep in the same list of substeps. But now, that interpretation isn't available, and the jump can only refer to the first substep in a completely separate list of substeps. I had been thinking that a 'jump' could only refer to one of its sibling-steps, or to a sibling of one of its ancestor-steps. (That was the only way I could make sense of the jumps and labels within this algorithm.) If, as it seems, that's not the case, then when the (remaining) "Process candidate" step says: jump down to the /failed/ step below it's somewhat ambiguous, because the algorithm has two steps labeled "Failed", and they're both below that step. > The other one is there because having an event loop is so key to the > processing model of HTML and so on that having it clearly labeled as > the relevant step is helpful for discussions of that part of the spec. But when you label a step to be helpful for discussion (rather than to be the target of a jump), don't you normally use <strong> (rather than <i>)? (E.g., "Suspending workers" in the same algorithm.) 86499 3 ian 2013-04-22 22:25:10 +0000 Woops, I meant to remove the first one. Thanks for checking that! I should generally never have duplicate label names, even if they're in different subalgorithms, if they're all wrapped in the same overall list of steps. I'll look into that "failed" one. Using <strong> instead of <i> is mostly random luck, but if I've been consistent about that I'll look into being even more consistent! 88669 4 contributor 2013-06-04 21:18:11 +0000 Checked in as WHATWG revision r7902. Check-in comment: Removed the wrong one in r7843. http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker?from=7901&to=7902 88671 5 contributor 2013-06-04 21:22:06 +0000 Checked in as WHATWG revision r7903. Check-in comment: More consistency in markup. http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker?from=7902&to=7903 88672 6 contributor 2013-06-04 21:24:15 +0000 Checked in as WHATWG revision r7904. Check-in comment: Avoid using the same label for two different steps in the same overall algorithm http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker?from=7903&to=7904 89136 7 ian 2013-06-11 22:58:46 +0000 *** Bug 22167 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***