- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 00:01:46 +0000 (UTC)
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005, Lachlan Hunt wrote: > > How is [contentEditable] any different from a text area form control > with a specified accept type of text/html, which would allow a UA to > load any external editor (eg. XStandard) or degrade to a regular text > area? contentEditable is implemented. <textarea type="text/html"> is not. > That would be a far better option than using contentEditable, which is > not only conceptually broken, but *all* implementations of it are so > incredibly broken, that trying to standardise it is like dragging a dead > horse through mud. There may be some truth to that, but contentEditable also has other benefits, like integration with the DOM, and the ability to seemlessly integrate with the page. For example, on a wiki, you can be browing the content, and then toggle one area so it is contentEditable, edit it, and submit that, all asynchronously and without having to switch in a <textarea> or anything like that. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 23 August 2005 17:01:46 UTC