- From: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
- Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 10:09:07 +0100
- To: <whatwg@lists.whatwg.org>
- Cc: dschulze@adobe.com
On 14/07/2014 09:43, Dirk Schulze wrote: > However, I would like to know what use cases and problems Dirk is trying to solve by moving these attributes from HTMLElement to Element. Dirk, could you elaborate on that? > If you add contentEditable to an HMTL element and an SVG element is an descendant of this element, SVG text is editable as well. If you add contentEditable to an SVGElement itself, it doesn’t work. That is an observation that can be see in all browsers IIRC. > > SVG folks actually get asked to support contentEditable. People want to use text along a path, have it selectable and editable. Just SVG can do that — but with the hack of above. Should we add contentEditable to SVGElement or Element seems to be the remaining question. This depends if there are similar scenarios in MathML (and other markup languages) as well. The MathML element case is similar to SVG the token elements such as mtext are basically just like <span> as far as text is concerned and editing the text in such an element is a perfectly natural requirement. "change the variable "x" to "y" in e^x... editing the more structural elements such as mfrac requires more editing support (or can be disallowed, whichever fits in best with the rest of the platform) same is true of SVG (or HTML tables for that matter). Dirk's observation above about having to put contentEditable on an ancestor HTML element reminds me of the arguments for adding .innerHTML and friends to MathML (by way of adding them to Element). As originally defined you couldn't use .innerHTML on MathML elements but if you wrapped them in a span the browser had to be able to generate the innerHTML serialisation of all the descendents of that span including the MathML, so innerMathML could be "faked" on MathML by wrapping it in a spurious span and then removing the <span> from the result. Allowing the innerHTML directly on the mathml elements just made the system more logical and more convenient. It seems contentEditable is similar. David
Received on Monday, 14 July 2014 09:09:40 UTC