- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2012 11:28:39 -0700
- To: Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org>
- Cc: whatwg <whatwg@lists.whatwg.org>, Alain Couthures <alain.couthures@agencexml.com>, Mikko Rantalainen <mikko.rantalainen@peda.net>
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org> wrote: > 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. I agree, I would like to see a more general-purpose solution for this. One problem that we have is that |new FormData(form)| allows synchronously grabbing, so we'd likely end up having to fire synchronous callbacks, which is always unfortunate, but I don't see an alternative here. Especially since grabbing data asynchronously is always risky. / Jonas
Received on Sunday, 16 September 2012 18:29:37 UTC