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

Re: An HTML language specification

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 14:31:22 -0500
Message-ID: <e9dffd640811211131u255425c9l82d2c0a84cfedfdf@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Boris Zbarsky" <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
Cc: public-html@w3.org

On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 10:59 AM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote:
>
> 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.

My bad; in my haste, I confused DOM attribute with a content attribute.

But I do consider this a different "where" than discussed before, when
I meant that I could live with the DOM being specified in a separate
section or a separate document.  I feel strongly that it should not be
specified inline with the meaning of the element and its attributes.

Mark.
Received on Friday, 21 November 2008 19:36:29 GMT

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