W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > November 2008

Re: An HTML language specification

From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 11:30:43 -0500
Message-ID: <492590B3.9050600@mit.edu>
To: public-html@w3.org

Mark Baker wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 10:39 AM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote:
>> A related question here.  Is the problem the use of the DOM per se, or the
>> general use of a tree structure for defining containment relationships?
>>  That is, is the problem the specific model, or the general type of model
>> used?
> To keep things simple, I'll just say that I would prefer no model be used.
> Geoffrey Sneddon writes;
>> How do you want the language to be defined?
> Declaratively, in prose.

Still trying to understand the exact meaning people are putting into 
their terms here.  Would the text below satisfy the "declaratively, in 
prose" criterion?

4.10.6 The select element

     Phrasing content.
     Interactive content.
     Listed, labelable, submittable, and resettable form-associated
Contexts in which this element may be used:
     Where phrasing content is expected.
Content model:
     Zero or more option or optgroup elements.
Element-specific attributes:

[definition of the DOM interface, definitions of what the 
element-specific attributes mean, and definitions of what the behavior 
of the DOM interface is skipped]

This seems pretty darn declarative to me (and a lot clearer and more 
useful than HTML4 ever was, I should note).  Is the objection to the 
fact that the DOM interface for <select> is defined right here next to 
the markup behavior?

Or is the objection just to the way the parsing algorithm is specified 
and not to the descriptions of individual elements?

Received on Thursday, 20 November 2008 16:31:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:39 UTC