On 11/24/13 10:27 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
(That's non-conforming, as far as I can tell, for what it's worth. The
HTML spec says you're supposed to render elements according to what they
represent, and <option> elements represent an option in a select, with a
label, value, etc; children elements have no bearing on all this.)
I realize that's your opinion and what you've put in the spec for now, yes.
Some do not. How are they not replaced elements in the latter?
I don't know what it would mean for them to be replaced elements. The
<select> is a replaced element, but its contents have no bearing on the
CSS spec at all.
Why not?
Seriously, how is this different from <svg> being a replaced element
with a <foreignObject> inside, apart from arbitrarily deciding that it
should be different?
But this doesn't seem like a productive avenue of debate, since we've
already agreed that the term we're debating is defined incorrectly anyway.
Fair enough.
-Boris
