Re: 9. WYSIWYG editor (enforcing the signature)

Mihai Sucan wrote:
> 
> I have read the HTML 5 spec section on WYSIWYG editors [1] and I'd like 
> to express my concern on requiring the inclusion of "(WYSIWYG editor)" 
> in the META NAME="generator" CONTENT attribute value.

I'd disagree with this for possibly different reasons.  The WYSIWYG flag 
is metadata in its own right and ought not to be appended to some other 
metadata value.  Normally this only occurs when someone who *doesn't* 
control a standard is trying to extend it, or, as the case of 
User-Agent, trying to trick software into believing that it isn't 
really, without quite lying (although the extra metadata there is really 
comments, and ought to be ignored.

> parsers to sniff the document for "WYSIWYG editors". This is like 
> checking for a "feature", a characteristic of the page. Also, this can 

I believe people normally use "feature" for almost the opposite tactic 
in this context.  As I understand it, doing a "feature test" means that 
you don't try to identify the browser, but simply make sure a feature 
that you intend to use is present, e.g. when you test for 
getElementByID, you are not trying to distinguish between NS4 and IE or 
even between DOM 0 and DOM 1, but simply determining whether or not you 
need to simulate that specific function.

-- 
David Woolley
Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.

Received on Thursday, 2 August 2007 21:42:26 UTC