[whatwg] Re: several messages
ian at hixie.ch
Mon Nov 8 15:55:35 PST 2004
One set of the ideas that was brought up in this forum was the ability to
extend <textarea> to support syntax highlighting, or WYSIWYG editing of
BB code markup, or just the ability to do rich text editing of any kind.
Having considered all the suggestions, the only thing I could really see
as being realistic would be to do something similar to (and ideally
compatible with) IE's "contentEditable" and "designMode" attributes.
I've added a placeholder section to Web Apps for now (7. Editing). I'll be
filling it in due course. If anyone has any comments related to IE's
contentEditable/designMode feature (problems with it, quirks, undocumented
features, etc), please let me know.
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004, James Graham wrote:
> I was having thoughts about a somewhat similar feature - the ability to
> specify a input 'language' for a text-area and possibly to specify a
> subset of language elements allowed. This would principally be for
> situations in which the input was text supplemented by a markup language
> such as (x)html, textile, bbcode or similar. Providing this information
> would allow the UA to provide word-processor-like editing controls for
> the textarea. Allowing the specification of a particular subset of the
> language (e.g. html, 'a' elements only, 'href' and 'lang' attributes
> only) would allow the UI to be further refined. Clearly one would need a
> set of default language profiles to ship with the UA. A good
> implementation might allow the set of profiles to be easily extended.
> There would need to be a mechanism for storing and fetching the
> information about the allowed subset of the language.
Realistically, I just can't see something of this scoped getting
implemented and shipped in the default install of browsers.
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
> Although, you've given me another idea. It would be nice to be able to
> reference a DTD or Schema that could be used by the UA to validate the
> user's input as a valid (X)HTML/XML fragment. That feature would be
> really helpful with many blogs that currently suffer from validation
> problems that come with readers posting comments containing markup.
Once you're talking about Schema-based validation prior to submission, I
think you're into XForms territory, really. If browsers implement it, you
could use DOM3 Validation to do it from script, too.
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004, James Graham wrote:
> So something that would roughly work: Add an optional dataformat (better
> name?) attribute that takes a URI. For XML formats, this will typically
> be the namespace of the format, for other formats it must simply be
> globally unique. Additionally, specify a set of string -> URI mappings
> for common formats such as HTML, XHTML and others so they may be
> identified by the shorter string (which must not be a valid URI) rather
> than the long URI. The behavior of the UA in response to the presence of
> the attribute is not specified.
The problem with this is I imagine UAs would probably just end up doing
nothing, and we'd be back to where we are now.
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004, Ryan Johnson wrote:
> Anyway, I think that it might be quite a jump for manufacturers. I also
> see that a standard language would need to be decided upon just to
> describe the structure of the programming languages. Is it worth the
> time to come up with suggestions and examples of a programming language
> definition markup, or is my head in the clouds? - Ryan
On Fri, 2 Jul 2004, Max Romantschuk wrote:
> We use the MSHTML editor in one of our products at work, and the editing
> features have been a huge selling point. It's a real shame it only works
> on IE. (We have a fallback based on regular forms tough.)
I think the fact that there is already content that uses these features is
probably the strongest argument towards WHATWG just reusing them.
(Thanks for the reference.)
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
More information about the whatwg