- From: Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>
- Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 20:16:49 -0500
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 5:30 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky at mit.edu> wrote: > I should note that it's not clear to me how much we want to standardize > what browsers actually copy when the user copies. This seems like something > that users may want to configure and where we want to let browsers > experiment with heuristics and such; I have a really hard time believing > that the current browser behavior here is the best we can do. > Given how often I've had poor results from copying (hidden blocks being included, copying image alts, sprinkling newlines in strange places, and so on), this seems important--browsers should be free to improve on copying without violating the spec. That leaves the question of whether Selection.toString should produce the > same string as the user copying and pasting would, of course. Perhaps it > shouldn't. I'm not sure we'd want to make what toString produce depend on > new CSS layout modes, for example, since that could break scripts... but the > user-facing copied text might want to depend on those. > I'd intuitively expect toString to give the same results that the user would get if he did a copy. If the two differ, there should be a separate method to do just that, including any browser-specific heuristics and so on. That way, scripts can get the best possible text representation available, rather than the most precisely-defined one, when that's what they want. -- Glenn Maynard
Received on Wednesday, 2 February 2011 17:16:49 UTC