- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 11:30:43 -0500
- To: public-html@w3.org
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