- From: Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>
- Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2011 18:56:25 +0000
- To: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- CC: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
On Thursday, July 07, 2011 11:38 AM, Aryeh Gregor wrote: > So at this point I'd like feedback from all the major browser > implementers on what they want to do here. I see three basic options: > > 1) Browsers drop innerText support entirely, like Gecko now. > > 2) Spec innerText to be like textContent but with whatever the bare > minimum of differences are to be web-compatible, like Opera now. > Authors who want to convert nodes to plaintext will have to use > Selection.toString(), which will either remain unspecified or be > specified separately. > > 3) Spec innerText to be some sort of complicated pretty-printing > mechanism, as compatible as possible with how browsers currently work. > The same algorithm could then optionally be reused for > Selection.toString(). > Can I get official or semi-official positions from the four major > browser engines on which of the three options are > preferred/acceptable/unacceptable to them? I don't know if there's > anything we can do that everyone will agree on, but we should get as > much agreement as possible. I don't think we would do option #1. Unless there is a conflict, we typically keep legacy functionality since it helps our developers move to the latest document modes without requiring extra (essentially unnecessary) work. We don't have a preference right now between 2 and 3. This doesn't seem like an urgent issue and we'll consider whatever doesn't break the web. Cheers, Adrian.
Received on Thursday, 7 July 2011 18:56:55 UTC