[whatwg] [WF2] The <icomplex> element
Hallvord Reiar Michaelsen Steen
hallvors at online.no
Thu Feb 10 03:35:32 PST 2005
On 9 Feb 2005 at 11:06, Matthew Raymond wrote:
> it's only used when complex legacy support is needed.
<X>
> <input> will still be preferred by webmasters that don't want to
> include fallback.
You can neither dictate nor predict such things.
Authors are going to use it however they like (not to mention that
their WYSIWYG editor will do things that they are not even aware of)
;)
> Let me know if there are any other concerns to address.
Not the prettiest tag name :)
The .elements problem is not solved, since the indexes will still be
different depending on what type of UA you deal with. It is more
common to access elements by name but in this scenario we are dealing
with legacy content possibly including older scripts that do not use
getElementById et al.
A DOM scripting issue if you want to add a new HTML element: what do
browsers do if you do document.createElement('icomplex') ? Will any
browsers choke and throw errors? If an element is created, can the
script reliably detect if the created element is the element type
they expect?
--
Hallvord Reiar Michaelsen Steen
http://www.hallvord.com/
Note: mail to hallvors at online.no will still be read but you may want to start using
hallvord at hallvord.com instead
--
Hallvord Reiar Michaelsen Steen
http://www.hallvord.com/
Note: mail to hallvors at online.no will still be read but you may want to start using
hallvord at hallvord.com instead
More information about the whatwg
mailing list