- From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 20:38:22 -0700
On Thursday 2006-06-01 00:41 +0000, Ian Hickson wrote: > Well, we want to avoid adding attributes for each feature (spellcheck=on > autoindent=on syntaxhighlight=on syntaxcheck=off, as browsers add each > feature) -- instead it is better, IMHO at least, to let the UA determine > how it should behave based on some semantic information, such as, in this > case, the type that is expected to be entered. > > I don't see why the same attribute _shouldn't_ be used to determine the > type of data to allow, and whether to do spell checking or not. After all, > whether to spell-check is directly related to what kind of data it is. This sounds a lot like <object>, which allowed for tons of features but didn't specify them precisely. Are you planning to specify exactly what the semantics of every MIME type are for all of these features? And any others people might want? And are there really MIME types that accurately represent the semantics of all the combinations of even just the 4 features you list above that authors will want? If every combination needs a name, what if people want to toggle six different things? Generic parameters to MIME types might be a nice solution, but I think we're past that point, unless you want to invent a syntax that represents MIME type - parameter list pairs. -David -- L. David Baron <URL: http://dbaron.org/ > Technical Lead, Layout & CSS, Mozilla Corporation -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20060531/9be2b598/attachment.pgp>
Received on Wednesday, 31 May 2006 20:38:22 UTC