On Jan 13, 2015, at 11:31 AM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbar...@mit.edu> wrote:
> On 1/13/15 1:33 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote: >> Shouldn't we throw in this case because the concert type of "somename" is >> HTMLUnknownElement? > > Oh, hmm. > > Yes, I guess so. That's very non-obvious to an author. > > Even less obvious because for some tag names using the HTMLElement > constructor is in fact correct. > > The end result here is really something that ends up all self-consistent and > preserving our invariants and the obvious reaction to it will be "WAT?". Not > least because the actual interface used by various HTML elements is pretty > random. > > Want a <basefont>? HTMLElement. Want a <bgsound>? HTMLUnknownElement. > Want a <rb>? HTMLUnknownElement. Want a <big>? HTMLElement… Indeed the developer ergonomics here is terrible :( >> I think if we threw an exception on every attempt to create an element with >> a name without "-" (as they're HTMLUnknownElement anyway) > > I'm not sure I follow. How do you propose an <s> be constructed via > constructor, say? What about <address>? Sorry, I meant that only non-standard (i.e. unknown) HTML elements. If we're disallowing upgrades as we've been arguing, then we should probably disallow HTMLUnknownElements altogether regardless of whether they contain "-" in their names or not. - R. Niwa
