W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > February 2005

[whatwg] [WF2] The <icomplex> element

From: Hallvord Reiar Michaelsen Steen <hallvors@online.no>
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 12:35:32 +0100
Message-ID: <420B5514.9827.7CF51ED@localhost>
On 9 Feb 2005 at 11:06, Matthew Raymond wrote:
> it's only used when complex legacy support is needed.
<X>
> <input> will still be preferred by webmasters that don't want to 
> include fallback. 

You can neither dictate nor predict such things. 
Authors are going to use it however they like (not to mention that 
their WYSIWYG editor will do things that they are not even aware of) 
;)

>  Let me know if there are any other concerns to address. 

Not the prettiest tag name :)

The .elements problem is not solved, since the indexes will still be 
different depending on what type of UA you deal with. It is more 
common to access elements by name but in this scenario we are dealing 
with legacy content possibly including older scripts that do not use 
getElementById et al.

A DOM scripting issue if you want to add a new HTML element: what do 
browsers do if you do document.createElement('icomplex') ? Will any 
browsers choke and throw errors? If an element is created, can the 
script reliably detect if the created element is the element type 
they expect?
-- 
Hallvord Reiar Michaelsen Steen
http://www.hallvord.com/

Note: mail to hallvors at online.no will still be read but you may want to start using 
hallvord at hallvord.com instead

-- 
Hallvord Reiar Michaelsen Steen
http://www.hallvord.com/

Note: mail to hallvors at online.no will still be read but you may want to start using 
hallvord at hallvord.com instead
Received on Thursday, 10 February 2005 03:35:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 13 April 2015 23:08:21 UTC