[whatwg] repetition model

Jim Ley jim.ley at gmail.com
Sun Jun 13 14:48:16 PDT 2004

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 22:25:20 +0100, Dean Edwards <dean at edwards.name> wrote:
>Ian Hickson wrote:
>>True. We could use a PI instead, but I don't think IE supports that (you
>>wouldn't be able to tell there was a PI in the DOM, right?).
>i just checked. they show up as comments! but they are readable. so if
>you are concerned with IE compatibility we could use a PI.

Yes, they're available in the DOM, as one of the key elements AIUI of
this specification is an ability to degrade gracefully in legacy UA's,
I'm concerned that we have an editor who isn't aware of the basic
features of the most significant legacy UA.  Also of course IE is not
the only Legacy, there's Safari, Mozilla, Opera etc. all of which also
need to be supported.  Quite apart from all the embedded devices and
Access Technologies.

>i can see that one form is much nicer to read than the other.

We cannot rely on scripting to achieve these features, I'm sure we'll
all committed to an accessible specification, and given the huge
security flaws regularly exposed in almost all UA's (certainly all
desktop ones) There MUST be no reliance on scripting.

> i
>think if something like this does go in the markup then maybe it should
>be a PI. i'm just not convinced either way. what do others feel?

Definately agree with this, but it won't degrade in all legacy UA's


More information about the whatwg mailing list