W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > April 2003

Re: document.write

From: Herr Christian Wolfgang Hujer <Christian.Hujer@itcqis.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 23:03:09 +0200
To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Cc: Matt Fletcher <msfy2k@yahoo.co.uk>, www-html@w3.org
Message-Id: <200304022303.09865.Christian.Hujer@itcqis.com>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi Boris,


Am Mittwoch, 2. April 2003 22:43 schrieb Boris Zbarsky:
> Herr Christian Wolfgang Hujer wrote:
> > document.write() should not work for any XHTML at all, as long as the
> > user agent recognizes that the document is XHTML and not HTML.
>
> Why?  There is nothing I can see in any specification preventing
> application of the HTML DOM to XHTML documents.... (and in fact Mozilla
> may well end up supporting that -- see
> http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=111514).  It likely won't
> implement document.write() for such documents, but that's due to
> implementation issues, not to anything I can see in a specification.
True, I just took a look at DOM Level 2 HTML.

But if I were an implementor, I wouldn't implement DOM Level 2 HTML.
E.g.:
interface HTMLBodyElement : HTMLElement {
           attribute DOMString       aLink;
           attribute DOMString       background;
           attribute DOMString       bgColor;
           attribute DOMString       link;
           attribute DOMString       text;
           attribute DOMString       vLink;
};
That addresses totally deprecated stuff. It is somewhat inconvenient, 
especially if an implementor tries to be uptodate with XHTML Recommendations. 
XHTML 1.1 itself is somewhat backwards-compatible with XHTML 1.0 Strict. But 
Transitional... I don't really like the transitional stuff and avoid it 
whereever possible. If I can't avoid it, it's a design flaw somewhere else, 
e.g. in CSS.


But I don't wanna discuss DOM Level 2 HTML:
a) That's the wrong list
b) I didn't complain while it was a working draft, so I have to shut up now.

If I don't forget to, I'll read DOM Level 3 HTML and complain about that as 
soon as a working draft is released and I find something to complain about 
(even better if I don't find something).

To repeat it again: You're true, DOM Level 2 HTML could be supported in XHTML, 
at least in XHTML 1.0.

If I were the W3C, I'd drop HTML/SGML support everywhere, that would simplify 
DOM and some other stuff.

I only support HTML because MS is too lazy to support XHTML.


Bye
- -- 
ITCQIS GmbH
Christian Wolfgang Hujer
Geschäftsführender Gesellschafter
Telefon: +49  (0)89  27 37 04 37
Telefax: +49  (0)89  27 37 04 39
E-Mail: Christian.Hujer@itcqis.com
WWW: http://www.itcqis.com/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE+i1ANzu6h7O/MKZkRAj2xAKCJhz22UnmzrWi+xXlrT3zr9ktrqQCfS6CP
b0NVEvSZJtXdE+kTLAybupE=
=BfB2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Wednesday, 2 April 2003 16:04:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:54 GMT