- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2004 09:19:41 +0000 (UTC)
On Sun, 13 Jun 2004, Dean Edwards wrote:
>>
>> True. We could use a PI instead, but I don't think IE supports that (you
>> wouldn't be able to tell there was a PI in the DOM, right?).
>
> i just checked. they show up as comments! but they are readable. so if
> you are concerned with IE compatibility we could use a PI.
Ok so here's a question for everyone. Assuming we want the <repeat>
mechanism, which I think we do, do people want it as an element, or as a
processing instruction?
HTML XHTML
As element: <repeat> <repeat/>
As PI: <?repeat> <?repeat?>
> i can see that one form is much nicer to read than the other. but only
> for a few elements. if i'm repeating a hundred rows it becomes easier in
> javascript (maybe add another attribute for the number of repeats?). i
> think if something like this does go in the markup then maybe it should
> be a PI. i'm just not convinced either way. what do others feel?
I don't think you'd see more than one or two on anything like a regular
basis.
--
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Saturday, 19 June 2004 02:19:41 UTC