- From: Bert Bos <bert@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 18:52:31 +0200
- To: www-style@w3.org
On Thursday 29 September 2005 15:56, Robert Koberg wrote: > Bert Bos wrote: > > Name: editable > > Value: auto | one | zero-or-one | zero-or-more | one-or-more > > Initial: auto > > Inherited: no > Should the value just be "yes | no"? You mention in point one (and I > assume the others?) that you can edit according to the DTD (ugghh - > why not RNG or XSD? why go backward?). "DTD" is just an example. I assume the editor has some idea of what content is allowed, but I don't care if that is hardcoded, from some DTD/schema, or some other way. I thought that four values was a good compromise between keeping the property simple and extending the number of useful features. And also because I'm assuming there is a reason why NVu has more than one kind of template. > If the DTD needs to be used (I > think it would), what happens when a CSS rule conflicts with the > DTD/Schema. The submitted document should be valid, I believe. So if the DTD/schema says that only one element is allowed, but the CSS rule says that there may be multiple, the editor should only allow one. As a general principle, documents on the Web should be valid, i.e., a document that is labeled with the MIME type foo/bar should indeed be a foo/bar document. That holds for documents going from the server to the client as well as for documents going the other way. (But as another general principle, the server should not trust what is sent and always check the submitted data; unless, perhaps, the data is digitally signed by a client that is known to never fail...) > > It seems like when this is fleshed out it would be like RNG's compact > syntax. I hope not :-) > > Problems will occur when you want to move something. That is a pain > in the butt. Yes, so maybe that should be considered out of scope. Bert -- Bert Bos ( W 3 C ) http://www.w3.org/ http://www.w3.org/people/bos W3C/ERCIM bert@w3.org 2004 Rt des Lucioles / BP 93 +33 (0)4 92 38 76 92 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France
Received on Thursday, 29 September 2005 16:52:48 UTC