I've been following this thread for a little while. I too think that
the contentEditable is not done quite right.
My biggest problem with it (and this was pointed out before) is that
it is a half-way effort: there is markup that enables the editing, but
there is no markup that provides any
Quoting from http://whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#parsing :
Conformance checkers must report all parse error conditions (both hard
and easy errors) to the user, but may apply error correction
algorithms (those described in the spec for easy errors, and those
reverse-engineered from
I propose to rename the currentFocus attribute to activeElement for
historical reasons.[1] (Both Internet Explorer and Opera implement it in
that way.)
Kind regards,
Anne
[1]http://msdn.microsoft.com/workshop/author/dhtml/reference/properties/activeelement.asp
--
Anne van Kesteren
# If the attribute's value cannot be converted to a number, it is treated
# as if the attribute was absent. The attribute has no default value.
The attribute's value is treated as if the attribute was absent doesn't
make a whole lot of sense to me. Did you mean a different 'it'?
# The value
On Sun, 31 Jul 2005, Matthew Raymond wrote:
Note that the text above was reviewed by the editor of the CSS3 UI
spec and given the all-clear.
Of course he gave it the all clear. He's the one who wrote the
disputed portion of the spec in the first place.
Which disupted section of which
On Wed, 3 Aug 2005, Dean Edwards wrote:
I know this has been suggested before, and was rejected, but I would
quite like to see a pattern hint attribute added to Web Forms 2.0.
With more complex input controls we should spare a thought for the poor
user.
There is one. It's the title
On Thu, 4 Aug 2005, Dean Edwards wrote:
I'm also concerned about pattern mismatches. If a form is invalid the UA
is supposed to feed back information to help the user complete the form.
http://whatwg.org/specs/web-forms/current-work/#form-submission
For most types, pattern mismatches
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, dolphinling wrote:
Perhaps I've missed something, but while I've seen lots on what
contentEditable does and how it works and how various other things are
associated with it, I've never actually seen anything explaining *why*
it exists. So... what's it good for?
Rich
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
How is [contentEditable] any different from a text area form control
with a specified accept type of text/html, which would allow a UA to
load any external editor (eg. XStandard) or degrade to a regular text
area?
contentEditable is implemented.
On Tue, 23 Aug 2005, Hallvord Reiar Michaelsen Steen wrote:
Could we extend contentEditable in a way that would let the UA offer a
non-scripting UI for saving the edited page? For example using the
form attribute from WF2?
What's wrong with File Save ?
--
Ian Hickson
On Tue, 23 Aug 2005, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
I was surprised to learn that WF2 spec does not support rich textarea. I
still can't figure out why.
Time. It's on the list for WA1/WF3 (although currently contentEditable is
the way I intend to address the need).
Again, IMHO, the
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, [UTF-8] Olav Junker Kjær wrote:
Is it possible to remove a constraint like maxLength (on input elements)
through script, eg. by setting it to null? By default a field does not
have any maxlength constraint, so it would seem natural that if you set
a constraint through
On Sat, 6 Aug 2005, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
I was wondering about section 6.2:
http://whatwg.org/specs/web-forms/current-work/#seeding
Should 'xmlns' be considered as an attribute? I was specifically
wondering about have no other non-namespaced attributes.
Clarified.
How should those
On Sat, 6 Aug 2005, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
Why does Web Forms 2 not deal with the textInput event from DOM Level 3
Events?
http://www.w3.org/TR/DOM-Level-3-Events/events.html#event-textInput
Is there something about DOM 3 Events' description that is ambiguous in
terms of WF2?
--
Ian
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005, Jep Castelein wrote:
Am I right in saying that section and especially article could promote the
use of multiple documents in 1 webpage?
That depends on what you mean by document.
--
Ian Hickson U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL
On 8/23/05, Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 23 Aug 2005, Hallvord Reiar Michaelsen Steen wrote:
Could we extend contentEditable in a way that would let the UA offer a
non-scripting UI for saving the edited page? For example using the
form attribute from WF2?
What's wrong
On 8/23/05, Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually, originally, HTML was supposed to be user editable always. Much
like in Amaya. So contentEditable is more of a compromise between the
original intent of the Web and the don't let them modify it! attitude
that has grown since.
I
On Tue, 23 Aug 2005, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
As you know, there is already a scheme for communicating server's
expectations on input -- forms.
I can't see how contentEditable fits in this scheme.
It doesn't. If you want contentEditable to be submitted, you need to use
a line of script.
On Tue, 23 Aug 2005, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
On 8/23/05, Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 23 Aug 2005, Hallvord Reiar Michaelsen Steen wrote:
Could we extend contentEditable in a way that would let the UA offer
a non-scripting UI for saving the edited page? For example
I may have spoken too soon on the absence of rich text editing textarea in WF2.
Looking at the spec, there is an accept attribute for the textarea
element, and its description fits the bill very nicely. If we have
accept=text/html or accept=application/xml+xhtml, it is totally up
to the UA to
On Tue, 23 Aug 2005, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
I may have spoken too soon on the absence of rich text editing textarea
in WF2.
Looking at the spec, there is an accept attribute for the textarea
element, and its description fits the bill very nicely. If we have
accept=text/html or
Ian Hickson wrote:
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
How is [contentEditable] any different from a text area form control
with a specified accept type of text/html, which would allow a UA to
load any external editor (eg. XStandard) or degrade to a regular text
area?
contentEditable
22 matches
Mail list logo
