- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 14:31:22 -0500
- To: "Boris Zbarsky" <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
- Cc: public-html@w3.org
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 10:59 AM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote: > > 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. My bad; in my haste, I confused DOM attribute with a content attribute. But I do consider this a different "where" than discussed before, when I meant that I could live with the DOM being specified in a separate section or a separate document. I feel strongly that it should not be specified inline with the meaning of the element and its attributes. Mark.
Received on Friday, 21 November 2008 19:36:29 UTC