W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-dom@w3.org > October to December 2001

Re: DOM Level 2 HTML in Last Call

From: Morten Wang <warnckew@online.no>
Date: 13 Dec 2001 11:59:12 +0100
To: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
Cc: WWW DOM <www-dom@w3.org>
Message-ID: <m3y9k75qtb.fsf@tigger.plaindog.no>
* Philippe Le Hegaret
> On behalf of the DOM Working Group [1], I am pleased to announce the
> publication of the DOM Level 2 HTML Last Call Working Draft:

I've only been through the first 1/3 of the draft so far.  found two
things though.

1: section 1.6.3, first sentence says
   "... is _a_ HTML 4.0 document ..."
   (my underlining).  it should read "... an HTML 4.0 document ..."
   which is what is used elsewhere in the draft.

2: the definition of HTMLInputElement says that the attribute "size"
   is of type "DOMstring", which startled me.  it didn't take me long
   to find that this is done due to the fact that both HTML 4.01 DTDs
   (strict & transitional) define the "size" attribute as "CDATA" (the
   XHTML DTDs inherit this definition).  the definition contradicts
   the recommendation which itself says:

      ''The width is given in pixels except when type attribute has
        the value "text" or "password". In that case, its value refers
        to the (integer) number of characters.''

   so in both cases the field contains a number.

browser practice differs on this though.  Mozilla 0.9.6 defines the
attribute as a string (element.size.toSource() return 'new String())
while Microsofts reference defines the attribute as an integer.

in my opinion the HTML 4.01 DTD shouldn't allow the attribute to be
set to "foo" when the recommendation clearly notes it should contain a
number, so both the DTDs, the recommendation and in turn the DOM draft
should be updated to reflect this.

(I'm currently not subscribed to the www-html mailing list, feel free
to pass this on to anyone there who might be interested)


Morten!

-- 
"...a liquid which was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea."
  My opinions are not necessarily those of my provider,
  not necessarily mine, and probably not necessary.
Received on Thursday, 13 December 2001 06:00:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 22 June 2012 06:13:55 GMT