ian at hixie.ch
Thu Jan 6 09:43:34 PST 2005
On Fri, 31 Dec 2004, dolphinling wrote:
> There are a bunch of things you've noted "for future versions" that I
> think could be easily put into WF2 without breaking anything else.
It's not a matter of breaking anything, it's that we don't want to add new
features at this point. Every new feature delays our moving to the next
step with the proposal, as it has to be proof read, tests have to be made,
comments have to be fielded, errors corrected, etc.
Many of the "for future version" proposals are indeed quite simple.
> Also, in the repetition model, I _REALLY_ don't like the repeat
> attribute applying to arbitrary non-form-related elements. It seems
> incredibly hackish to me--why should trs, ps, lis, etc. get a new
> attribute just because forms have been updated? I'd much prefer that the
> new attribute only apply to fieldsets, and those can be wrapped around
> the stuff you want repeated (which is actually correct semantically,
You need it at least for LIs and TRs, and at that point it's easier to
define it in terms of every element than start special casing certain
elements over others.
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
More information about the whatwg