- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2011 22:33:11 +0000 (UTC)
- To: David Flanagan <dflanagan@mozilla.com>
- cc: Ms2ger <ms2ger@gmail.com>, www-dom@w3.org
On Tue, 9 Aug 2011, David Flanagan wrote: > On 8/9/11 1:55 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: > > > The terminology is confusing because we can have an object that > > > implements HTMLDocument but is not "flagged as an HTML document". > > > All documents are HTML documents but some are more HTML than others > > > and get special uppercasing and lowercasing behavior of their > > > tagnames. Since the primary consumer of the DOM spec is the HTML > > > spec, I think the editors of the DOM spec might want to change the > > > phrase "flagged as an HTML document" since the term "html document" > > > gets overridden by the HTML spec :-) > > > > The term "HTML document" actually comes from the HTML spec originally. > > The term as used in the HTML spec is the same. > > Your suggestion on the whatwg list to change "interface HTMLDocument" > into "partial interface Document" would go a long way to clearing up the > confusion I experience. > > Still, I think it would be helpful if the DOM spec changed the html flag > into two distinct internal properties: caseSensitive and > allowsProcessingInstructions. Documents created with createDocument() > are case sensitive and allow PIs. Documents created with > createHTMLDocument() are not. There are far more differences. For example, <noscript> is allowed in HTML Documents but not XML Documents. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 9 August 2011 22:33:36 UTC