- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 13:53:09 +0000 (UTC)
On Tue, 6 Jul 2004, Jim Ley wrote: > On Tue, 6 Jul 2004 13:35:40 +0000 (UTC), Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote: > > On Sun, 4 Jul 2004, Matthew Raymond wrote: > > > > > > 1) The <datalist> element. > > > > > > I disapprove of this tag for two reasons. The first is that it > > > depends on abusive markup for it to properly degrade in a legacy UA. > > > > I don't really understand why you think it is abusive. > > > > It would be abusive if the semantic of <datalist> was "list of options", > > but it is "a list of options, or an alternate representation for legacy > > UAs". It has a lot in common with the <object> element, in fact. > > So why not use OBJECT? It would get around the abusiveness (which I > have some sympathies with) I fail to see how <object> would make sense here. Could you expand on your proposal? Note that <form> has a lot in common with <h1>, but that doesn't mean they are equivalent and certainly doesn't mean one could be used instead of the other. > > > The second reason is that you can accomplish the same thing using the > > > ignore attribute without introducing a new element. > > > > I don't see why introducing elements is worse than introcuing attributes, > > in this context. > > Legacy UA's do a better job of dealing with new attributes, than they > do new elements. But in this case, we are talking about making legacy UAs _show_ the contents. So why would this be relevant? -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 6 July 2004 06:53:09 UTC