- From: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@expway.fr>
- Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 18:24:16 +0200
- To: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
- Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Daniel Glazman wrote: > Robin Berjon wrote: >> The downside of an attribute is getting multiple views of the same >> document, one editable, one not (or further, with different parts > > No, this is never going to happen. I worked for Grif and Grif was able > to render multiple views of the same DOM. None of our clients at that time, > and that included people doing collaborative editing, aeronautics, defense, > pharmaceutical industry and governments, none of them ever needed to have > editability on per-views basis because it would imply a security problem. Sorry, I was unclear, I didn't mean simultaneous views. I was more thinking of the same document, unmodified, going through a variety of stages. For instance when at the "author" stage you can edit everything but when at the "subeditor" stage you can only edit h1,h2... >> editable). And I doubt that it would be possible to argue for putting >> it in the XML namespace. > > I said xml:editable as I could say foobar:editable as soon as foobar > namespace is a generic inclusion for all xml dialects. We're speaking of something > that is completely dialect-agnostic here. Sure, any new namespace is a generic inclusion for all XML dialects. The 'xml' one is special, hence my remark. >> I think attaching it using selectors or XPath is great -- they don't >> have to be limited to style. Making it a CSS property is another >> question and I agree it shouldn't be there. > > Just think of user stylesheets... Editability should definitely NOT > be overridable. This is an author-only feature. Well, presumably the server would check what's been done so it wouldn't be harmful per se. Just very rarely useful. -- Robin Berjon Senior Research Scientist Expway, http://expway.com/
Received on Friday, 30 September 2005 16:24:35 UTC