W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-dom@w3.org > April to June 2010

Re: DOM L3 Core spec.: textContent specification ambiguity

From: Michael A. Puls II <shadow2531@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 20:44:36 -0400
To: www-dom@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.ve1dokeq1ejg13@sandra-svwliu01>
On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 05:13:21 -0400, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org> wrote:

> Hi, Daniel-
> I agree with Robin that the text seems clear, and that the string  
> "&lt;e/&gt;" doesn't contain markup... in fact, it's specifically  
> escaped so that the UA doesn't misinterpret it as markup.
> However, if you still think it's ambiguous, the most productive way  
> forward is not to present arguments, but to propose alternate wording.

"Similarly, on setting, no parsing is performed either, the input string  
is taken as pure textual content."

Why not take that as an example and use:

"On getting, no serialization is performed, the returned string contains  
pure textual content."


That would get rid of 'markup', which I don't think should have even been  
brought up in the first place.

If you are going to mention 'markup', I think it'd be good to say that the  
returned string doesn't contain markup in the innerHTML sense. But, is  
mention 'markup' actually necessary? Shouldn't "No serialization is  
performed" be enough?

Also, the setting and getting descriptions are all lumped and intermixed  
into that paragraph.

I'd much prefer:

On setting:

Setting description

On getting:

Getting description.

Received on Tuesday, 29 June 2010 00:45:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 20 October 2015 10:46:16 UTC