W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2011

Re: RFC from implementers on Element.innerText

From: Aryeh Gregor <ayg@aryeh.name>
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 12:52:56 -0400
Message-ID: <CAKA+AxmwFR8vA548MJ_Sqz8jjJbsom-+gXZ6cU0FdBW2AVKyow@mail.gmail.com>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Cc: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, public-html@w3.org
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 2:48 AM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote:
> I guess my preference order would be:
>
> 1) If Selection.toString() and Element.innerText can be the same (or very nearly the same with perhaps a simple flag controlling a few necessary differences), that would be the best solution to spec.

I would agree with this if we had a Selection.toString() spec that was
usable and that browsers were willing to converge on.  However, we
don't, and it doesn't look like we'll have one in the near future, so
this isn't practical for the time being.

> 2) If #1 is impractical, and a relatively simple solution is compatible with innerText-using content (including content that uses innerText conditionally, or avoids using it in Gecko-based browsers), then that seems like potentially the next-best choice.

This seems to be the case in practice, unless we're okay with leaving
innerText with no definition at all for the foreseeable future (until
we get a Selection.toString() spec).

> 3) If #1 and #2 are both impractical, then specifying fairly complex behavior for innerText that does not match anything else seems acceptable.

I don't think this is necessary.
Received on Tuesday, 2 August 2011 16:53:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:37 GMT