- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 10:59:50 -0500
- To: public-html@w3.org
Mark Baker wrote: > What you've included above is reasonable, but there are some other > parts of SELECT's definition (as just one example) which are > DOM-specific. For example; > > "The options DOM attribute must return an HTMLOptionsCollection > rooted at the select node, whose filter matches the elements in the > list of options." Hold on. In http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Nov/0351.html we have: >> 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? > > No. As I mentioned to Maciej, *where* the DOM stuff goes isn't as > important to me as decoupling the definition of the language from it. That first part is me, that second part is you. So I thought we'd settled that this wasn't a problem you were having with the spec. It's really hard to figure out what the issues with the spec are if people keep changing their positions like that. So I guess let's back up all the way. Can you clearly summarize exactly what you see as wrong with the spec for <select> and how your proposed changes would improve it? -Boris P.S. I'm glad to hear that after actually looking at the parser spec you're ok with it. I wish more of the people who seem to not be OK with it would look at it... ;)
Received on Friday, 21 November 2008 16:11:04 UTC