2012-09-07 11:57 Europe/Helsinki: Hugh Guiney: > JavaScript into, say, a hidden form field. I think that there should > be some mechanism to associate contentEditable elements with > forms—maybe the combination of contentEditable="true" and the presence > of @name creates an implicit form control? The value sent to the > server could be equivalent to that element's innerHTML. Thoughts?
The contenteditable attribute is meant for low level wysiwyg-editor like behavior framework and it is not meant to work standalone without scripting. I'd suggest supporting <textarea type="text/html"> with a built-in HTML wysiwyg editor if any UA wants to support HTML editing without JavaScript. In that case, the UA should provide a scriptable method for detecting for native support of type="text/html". As a result, a CMS system could fallback to e.g. TinyMCE or CKeditor to emulate the missing support. -- Mikko
