- From: Matthew Raymond <mattraymond@earthlink.net>
- Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 06:33:04 -0400
Lachlan Hunt wrote: > Anne van Kesteren wrote: > >>From a semantic point of view contentEditable is much better than a textarea hack. > > contentEditiable is not semantic, it's behavioural and belongs in the > DOM interface only, not the markup. Yeah, I think you may have a point. It may make more sense to enable editing of DOM Ranges through scripting rather than putting it in markup. After all, if we're going to be dynamically inserting and removing |contenteditable| all over the place, we're already using scripting. On the other hand, if you have a static block that you're going to edit and submit, an actual control makes more sense, be it <htmlarea> or <textarea accept="text/html">. Hmm. IE supports the .contentEditable property, so why not just drop the HTML attribute |contenteditable| and leave the DOM property? Not as good as DOM ranges, but that sounds kinda complicated anyways. Nutshell: Allow .contentEditable, but get rid of |contenteditable|.
Received on Wednesday, 24 August 2005 03:33:04 UTC