- From: Hallvord Reiar Michaelsen Steen <hallvord@hallvord.com>
- Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 10:21:32 +0200
On 29 Aug 2005 at 17:25, Jim Ley wrote: > > Why must contentEditable depend on scripting? What if we make sure > > the wording of the spec allows non-scripting implementations? > > Please, no, a lot the use cases for contentEditable are not full > wysiwyg editing, a lot of the ones I create allow only a minimal > subset of editing, and they do this by scripting, if you can only > strong/make link/italic/colour/insert image, then you get a simple > editor that allows for easy editing, but doesn't run into much > tag-soup that needs elaborate cleaning up. If the UA makes tag soup rather than valid code, that is a bug in the UA and should be reported in the appropriate bug system. If security and content filtering is a concern - well, you have to filter anyway, remember to never trust user input. Also, it would be trivial to specify what functionality a UA should support in non- scripting mode, and what should only be activated through scriptable interfaces. > Whilst I agree the concept of contentEditable is not good, I don't > think it should be solved by trying to modify the existing behaviour > the accept="text/html" is a much better way of meeting your use case. If it gets implemented in a WYSIWYG form... We have already discussed back and forth on whether using a TEXTAREA is better, and I think we all agree that neither approach is really good. Saying that contentEditable elements can become part of a form will give us the best parts from each of the worlds IMO. -- Hallvord Reiar Michaelsen Steen http://www.hallvord.com/
Received on Tuesday, 30 August 2005 01:21:32 UTC