- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2013 22:40:03 -0500
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: whatwg@lists.whatwg.org
On 11/24/13 10:27 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: > (That's non-conforming, as far as I can tell, for what it's worth. The > HTML spec says you're supposed to render elements according to what they > represent, and <option> elements represent an option in a select, with a > label, value, etc; children elements have no bearing on all this.) I realize that's your opinion and what you've put in the spec for now, yes. >> Some do not. How are they not replaced elements in the latter? > > I don't know what it would mean for them to be replaced elements. The > <select> is a replaced element, but its contents have no bearing on the > CSS spec at all. Why not? Seriously, how is this different from <svg> being a replaced element with a <foreignObject> inside, apart from arbitrarily deciding that it should be different? > But this doesn't seem like a productive avenue of debate, since we've > already agreed that the term we're debating is defined incorrectly anyway. Fair enough. -Boris
Received on Monday, 25 November 2013 03:40:30 UTC