W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > November 2007

Re: @contenteditable versus <richtext>

From: Martin Atkins <mart@degeneration.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2007 08:27:46 +0000
Message-ID: <472ADF82.4010701@degeneration.co.uk>
To: public-html <public-html@w3.org>

Andrew Fedoniouk wrote:
> 
> flat DOM --------------------------
> 
> Such <richtext> shall use so called "flat DOM" so
> there cannot be:
>  1) nested <div>s;
>  2) <li> is a kind of <p> - can contain only text and spans.
>  3) nested tables;
>  4) only two levels of spans are allowed - so called
>     background and foreground spans;
>  5) there are no <font> and <span> elements inside the editor.
> 

What is the behavior if the source document supplies some HTML that does 
not fit the above constraints?

 > <richtext tools=#tools>
 >   <p>Hello World</p>
 > </richtext>

This has the potential to break if the source HTML contains errors, 
since it may throw off the parser and cause the document to be edited to 
"escape" out into the page.

Not being able to tolerate invalid data would make this element largely 
useless for any application which also allows raw entry of HTML source 
from users as an option, since any mistake from the user in raw entry 
mode could break the WYSIWYG editor.
Received on Friday, 2 November 2007 08:27:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:09 GMT