- From: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>
- Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 10:40:21 -0700
- Cc: "Bert Bos" <bert@w3.org>, <www-style@w3.org>
Hi, Lachlan, ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lachlan Hunt" <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au> > > 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. In our experimental engine all input elements and their components are part of the dom. So e.g. <select> and their <option>s are accessible from the DOM and more over can have arbitrary content. See illustration: http://terrainformatica.com/hsmile/images/sctls.png http://www.terrainformatica.com/news/0002.whtm The same apply to the content of <textarea> and <htmlarea>. <textarea> - is the same wysiwyg editor - container of paragraphs textarea { white-space: pre } textarea p { margin:0 } To be short: In our case all "controls" and their content are "DOM citizens" with "behaviors" applied, again, through CSS. > > 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. Agree. But it is better than nothing and easy to implement and compact. We are limitied in 812kb of binary size. > > [1] > http://listserver.dreamhost.com/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2005-August/thread.html#4526 > Oh, thanks for that. Andrew Fedoniouk. http://terrainformatica.com
Received on Friday, 30 September 2005 17:40:36 UTC