- From: Markus Ernst <derernst@gmx.ch>
- Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2012 09:50:35 +0200
- To: Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org>
- Cc: whatwg <whatwg@lists.whatwg.org>, Alain Couthures <alain.couthures@agencexml.com>, Mikko Rantalainen <mikko.rantalainen@peda.net>
Am 13.09.2012 23:06 schrieb Ojan Vafai: > On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 1:07 PM, Alain Couthures < > alain.couthures@agencexml.com> wrote: > >> Le 07/09/2012 12:32, Mikko Rantalainen a écrit : >> >> 2012-09-07 11:57 Europe/Helsinki: Hugh Guiney: >>> >>>> JavaScript into, say, a hidden form field. I think that there should >>>> be some mechanism to associate contentEditable elements with >>>> forms—maybe the combination of contentEditable="true" and the presence >>>> of @name creates an implicit form control? The value sent to the >>>> server could be equivalent to that element's innerHTML. Thoughts? >>>> >>> The contenteditable attribute is meant for low level wysiwyg-editor like >>> behavior framework and it is not meant to work standalone without >>> scripting. >>> >>> I'd suggest supporting <textarea type="text/html"> with a built-in HTML >>> wysiwyg editor if any UA wants to support HTML editing without >>> JavaScript. In that case, the UA should provide a scriptable method for >>> detecting for native support of type="text/html". As a result, a CMS >>> system could fallback to e.g. TinyMCE or CKeditor to emulate the missing >>> support. >>> >>> @type should only contain a type name, such as "date" or "number", and >> "text/html" is a media type so "html" would be more appropriate from my >> point of view. >> >> I can mention that XForms has the same problematic and I implemented a >> wysiwyg editor support in my own XForms implementation with TinyMCE for >> XForms textarea control. In XForms, the type associated to the target node >> is used to automatically adapt the control rendering. >> >> BTW, I even consider that "textarea" would be useless if only a >> "multilined" type could be supported for the input field. A select field >> would be an input field for an enumeration... So input tag would cover >> every possibility! >> > > I think this is a problem that we need to address more generally. I'm not > sure what the API should look like, but it's not specific to > contentEditable. I should be able to make a Web Component that submits > specific values with forms based off it's content. If we solve that problem > right, it'll be possible to make contentEditable elements submit with forms > without extra JS code. We have the @form attribute in form controls, as described in 4.10.18.3. If @form was made a global attribute, every element could be associated with a form. If an element contains a @name attribute and a @form attribute, and there is a form with the name specified in the @form attribute, then the inner HTML of the element will be submitted with this form. (As the submitted value is a string, I believe this would not even be a problem if the element is the form itself or one of its ancestor elements.)
Received on Friday, 14 September 2012 07:51:11 UTC