- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2011 20:18:00 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13401 --- Comment #6 from Jan Varga <jan.varga@gmail.com> 2011-08-01 20:17:59 UTC --- (In reply to comment #5) > I don't have so much of a problem with the .checked attribute (it always > reflecting the actual checked state of the checkbox makes a lot of sense to > me), but rather to the fact that the DOM-attribute doesn't track the state of > the checkbox. However that seems too late to change at this point. > so, if I understood it correctly you would prefer the DOM-attribute checked to reflect the state of both elements - <input> and <command> however, if we can't change the behavior of <input> which uses the DOM attribute to set only the initial state then <command> should work the same way, right ? > I still haven't fully understood the <command> API, so I don't have a strong > opinion on it. Other than that <menuitem> seems like a more intuitive name for > menu items, and <button> seems like a more intuitive name for toolbar buttons. yeah, I think <command> could be defined only in the head and <menu> would contain only a reference to it <head> <command id="edit-command"> </head> <menu> <menuitem command="edit-command"> </menu> there's a discussion about command="" at: http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2007-April/011048.html http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2008-July/015434.html -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Monday, 1 August 2011 20:18:04 UTC