Inline definition of sectioning root elements

[mattgarrish]

This does the base minimum to address w3c/pm-wg#3 -- I've inlined the list of elements as mentioned in w3c/pm-wg#3 (comment)

The mix of elements is still odd (body can't occur inside of the body, etc.), and the spec still talks about outlines in relation to these elements, but I'll open a separate issue for those problems.

---

Preview | Diff

[iherman]

I guess this is a class 2 change, right? I have labeled it as such... (nothing really changes, just the reference change in some way)

[mattgarrish]

Should we go ahead and merge this, since it's not changing any existing requirements, or do you think we should wait and get a group resolution on the next call?

[iherman]

The issue is of class 3. I would think that a more explicit approval of the WG is necessary. @wareid @TzviyaSiegman @shiestyle, maybe we could make an email review call to approve changes of this sort. This seems to have worked before.

On the editorial side: @mattgarrish, I am not sure how you intend to manage this in general, but shouldn't the document be prepared for the candidate correction phase? That is what class 3 requires...

[iherman]

I just see that the PR is marked as class 2, whereas #3 is set as class 3. Which one is correct? This should be in sync...

[mattgarrish]

We're not fully addressing what is in the pm-wg tracker issue, so I don't know what needs to be done there. It maybe stays open as class three but refers now to #264.

This is the change we discussed in that thread that avoids us making a class 3 change until we have more input on how to change the toc processing algorithm (i.e., it just inlines the now-missing element list from html). Fixing #264 will fix the pm-wg issue.

[iherman]

@mattgarrish yes, I remember now. #263 (comment) is moot... but then we should not make w3c/pm-wg#3 automatically closed if this PR is merged.

Answering to your original question with a fresh eye: in my view yes, it could be merged. But our fearless chairs should also give their opinion :-)

[mattgarrish]

we should not make w3c/pm-wg#3 automatically closed if this PR is merged.

Right, I've stripped the reference, although I'm not sure it would have worked as I don't think I have access to close issues across to that repository.

[iherman]

we should not make w3c/pm-wg#3 automatically closed if this PR is merged.

Right, I've stripped the reference, although I'm not sure it would have worked as I don't think I have access to close issues across to that repository.

Don't know either, but I have just given you "maintain" rights on that repo as well, just in case...