W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > September 2009

Re: <details>

From: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 13:08:05 +0100
To: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
Cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1253016486.7391.104.camel@ophelia2.g5n.co.uk>
On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 13:55 +0200, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
> Your proposal and suggestion for how to use it seem to be conflicting.
> You seem to be proposing that if the attribute evaluates to true.
> i.e. <script implements="elements#details"> is supposed to check if
> the details element is implemented, and then executes the script if it
> evaluates to true.

No, what I've always said is that <script
implements="elements#details"> is simple, declarative markup indicating
that this <script> element provides an implementation of the <details>

The usual behaviour of a browser with native support for <details> would
be to *not* execute the script. If the script was externally referenced
with <script> it need not even download it, saving precious bytes.

An alternative behaviour would be to disable its native support for
<details> and execute the script. I don't imagine that many browsers
would take this approach. However it may be useful to do this with more
complicated elements like <video>, where it might be advantageous to
disable a partial, native implementation, in favour of a fuller,
scripted implementation.

Toby A Inkster
Received on Tuesday, 15 September 2009 12:08:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:51 UTC