- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 16:44:17 -0400
- To: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>
- CC: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On 6/30/11 4:24 PM, Aryeh Gregor wrote: > Personally, I think the restriction makes no sense at all. That's because you're presupposing what people are using HTML editors for, I think. > Is there any reason in favor of the status quo other than possibly compat Maybe. See below. > (which can't be a huge deal if Chrome hasn't seen issues) Have they not? When did they change the behavior from the one seen in Safari 5? > I can't fathom why it was ever this way to begin with. For one thing because in the context of a wysiwyg HTML editor (think something like an authoring tool, as opposed to a wysiwyg pretty text editor that happens to use HTML as its data representation but hides it completely) it makes no sense to run the scripts as the author authors them. In Gecko's case, whole-document designMode is based on code written to support the former use case (the old suite's HTML editor, in particular). contenteditable, on the other hand, is clearly a "take this bit of pretty text and let the user play with it" use case, not a "create an HTML document possibly with some attached behavior" use case.... -Boris
Received on Thursday, 30 June 2011 20:44:54 UTC