- From: Ms2ger <ms2ger@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 10:57:04 +0200
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- CC: David Flanagan <dflanagan@mozilla.com>, www-dom@w3.org
On 08/10/2011 12:33 AM, Ian Hickson wrote: > 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. Indeed. Also, having two flags would suggest that one could be set while the other isn't, and that would, I think, lead to more confusion. Ms2ger
Received on Wednesday, 10 August 2011 08:57:34 UTC