W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > June 2004

[whatwg] repetition model

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2004 09:19:41 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0406190916150.32244@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:58:34 UTC