- From: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
- Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 18:05:13 +0200
- To: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@expway.fr>
- Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Robin Berjon wrote: > The downside of an attribute is getting multiple views of the same > document, one editable, one not (or further, with different parts No, this is never going to happen. I worked for Grif and Grif was able to render multiple views of the same DOM. None of our clients at that time, and that included people doing collaborative editing, aeronautics, defense, pharmaceutical industry and governments, none of them ever needed to have editability on per-views basis because it would imply a security problem. > editable). And I doubt that it would be possible to argue for putting it > in the XML namespace. I said xml:editable as I could say foobar:editable as soon as foobar namespace is a generic inclusion for all xml dialects. We're speaking of something that is completely dialect-agnostic here. > I think attaching it using selectors or XPath is great -- they don't > have to be limited to style. Making it a CSS property is another > question and I agree it shouldn't be there. Just think of user stylesheets... Editability should definitely NOT be overridable. This is an author-only feature. Using a selecting mechanism would be cool, yes. But being able to say a given element is editable w/o having to give it an ID would be cool too... </Daniel>
Received on Friday, 30 September 2005 16:06:14 UTC