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

Re: An HTML language specification

From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 10:59:50 -0500
Message-ID: <4926DAF6.4050008@mit.edu>
To: public-html@w3.org

Mark Baker wrote:
> What you've included above is reasonable, but there are some other
> parts of SELECT's definition (as just one example) which are
> DOM-specific.  For example;
> 
> "The options  DOM attribute must return an HTMLOptionsCollection
> rooted at the select node, whose filter matches the elements in the
> list of options."

Hold on.  In 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Nov/0351.html we have:

 >> 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?
 >
 > No.  As I mentioned to Maciej, *where* the DOM stuff goes isn't as
 > important to me as decoupling the definition of the language from it.

That first part is me, that second part is you.  So I thought we'd 
settled that this wasn't a problem you were having with the spec.  It's 
really hard to figure out what the issues with the spec are if people 
keep changing their positions like that.

So I guess let's back up all the way.  Can you clearly summarize exactly 
what you see as wrong with the spec for <select> and how your proposed 
changes would improve it?

-Boris

P.S.  I'm glad to hear that after actually looking at the parser spec 
you're ok with it.  I wish more of the people who seem to not be OK with 
it would look at it... ;)
Received on Friday, 21 November 2008 16:11:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:25 GMT