Re: An HTML language specification

Mark Baker wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 10:39 AM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote:
>> A related question here.  Is the problem the use of the DOM per se, or the
>> general use of a tree structure for defining containment relationships?
>>  That is, is the problem the specific model, or the general type of model
>> used?
> 
> To keep things simple, I'll just say that I would prefer no model be used.
 >
> Geoffrey Sneddon writes;
>> How do you want the language to be defined?
> 
> Declaratively, in prose.

Still trying to understand the exact meaning people are putting into 
their terms here.  Would the text below satisfy the "declaratively, in 
prose" criterion?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
4.10.6 The select element

Categories
     Phrasing content.
     Interactive content.
     Listed, labelable, submittable, and resettable form-associated
     element.
Contexts in which this element may be used:
     Where phrasing content is expected.
Content model:
     Zero or more option or optgroup elements.
Element-specific attributes:
     autofocus
     disabled
     form
     multiple
     name
     size

[definition of the DOM interface, definitions of what the 
element-specific attributes mean, and definitions of what the behavior 
of the DOM interface is skipped]
------------------------------------------------------------------------

This seems pretty darn declarative to me (and a lot clearer and more 
useful than HTML4 ever was, I should note).  Is the objection to the 
fact that the DOM interface for <select> is defined right here next to 
the markup behavior?

Or is the objection just to the way the parsing algorithm is specified 
and not to the descriptions of individual elements?

-Boris

Received on Thursday, 20 November 2008 16:31:28 UTC