[whatwg] Thoughts on HTML 5

Garrett Smith dhtmlkitchen at gmail.com
Sun Dec 21 13:49:32 PST 2008

On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 10:12 AM, Giovanni Campagna
<scampa.giovanni at gmail.com> wrote:
> Please Note: all the following is my personal humble opinion.

> parser is involved), events are far better handled by DOM3Events, styling is
> included by CSSOM

Styling is done in css.

I don't have time to go into the all the problems with CSSOM here.
Shortcomings of the CSSOM 'views' module were discussed on www-style.
'VIews' is not the only CSSOM module that has problems.

> you don't need collection either: just use appropriate DOMNodeLists, while
> for DOMStringMap you may use binding specific features (all Object are hash
> maps in ECMAScript3): it works this way even in HTML5

Where are you getting this information?

> but scripts use certain features only on their own browsing context, so that
> may be moved from that to global scope, removing the whole window object
> from scope (for current javascript you can write
> window.window.window.window.window... and get the same as nothing)

The closest definition to 'nothing' would be the value undefined. I do
not know of a browser where - window.window.window === undefined is
true by default. I get window.

A relevant example would be useful.

The closes thing we got to an example of invalid html is TJ post about
jquery validation plugin. If you click throuh, there is an demo using
a minlength custom attribute. The attribute may have the effect the
author wanted it to have in a set of browses he is concerned about.
That "effect" and the "set of browsers" could be more clearly
demonstrated in an example that shows only that, as well as edge cases
where results may vary.

If you can't define clearly what can be reasonably expected of a piece
of (invalid) code, then nothing can be reasonably expected of it. It's
not a good to write code that can't have an expected outcome.

> Best regards,
> Giovanni Campagna

More information about the whatwg mailing list