- From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 10:22:33 +1000
- To: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>
- CC: Bert Bos <bert@w3.org>, www-style@w3.org
Andrew Fedoniouk wrote: > Instead of having contentEditable attribute in our rendering engine we've > introduced new input element <htmlarea> analogous to <textarea>. We had a similar discussion recently on the WHATWG list [1] about contentEditable vs. htmlarea vs. textarea. The general feeling, AIUI, was that <textarea accept="text/html"> and a hypothetical <htmlarea> element would be semantically equivalent, and that contentEditable is also needed for different use cases, mostly because, unlike textarea, (1) its content can be styled with CSS and (2) its content can be accessed/manipulated through the DOM interface. For textarea, it's up to the UA to provide the editing environment, whether it be a WYSIWYG type of editor, a textarea with syntax hilighting, or whatever else. Plus the textarea at least falls back to a textarea for UAs that don't provide such editing abilities and is more flexible in that it can accept any type of text input, such as text/*, */*+xml, etc, whereas htmlarea is limited to HTML only. > allow - string, comma delimited list of tag names of allowed > elements in the content. > reject - string, comma delimited list of tag names of forbidden > elements in the content. The expressiveness of such attributes is limited at best, and such complicated validation is best handled on the server side. [1] http://listserver.dreamhost.com/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2005-August/thread.html#4526 -- Lachlan Hunt http://lachy.id.au/
Received on Friday, 30 September 2005 00:22:47 UTC