- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2011 15:16:52 -0400
- To: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>
- CC: Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, public-html@w3.org
On 7/7/11 2:37 PM, Aryeh Gregor wrote: > 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. Either one of these would be fine by us (Mozilla). I think I can claim this part is official. > 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(). I personaly am opposed to doing this, and Jonas agrees with me. Let's call that semi-official. If this were done, it would, imo: 1) Need to actually be defined in a way that's interoperably implementable without imposing new constraints on the browser's CSS implementation (e.g. can't assume things about the structure of the box model that are not defined in the CSS spec). 2) Require a commitment from the existing pretty-printing implementations to converge on this behavior (there's no point otherwise). 3) Likely be a specification, if not implementation, rathole. If, in the meantime, you want someone to poke holes in your spec from February, I can probably to that. ;) Send me a link. -Boris
Received on Thursday, 7 July 2011 19:17:21 UTC