[whatwg] Proposal: Add HTMLElement.innerText

[Robert O'Callahan]

On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 6:30 PM, Adam Barth <w3c at adambarth.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 11:18 PM, Robert O'Callahan
> <robert at ocallahan.org> wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 6:16 PM, Robert O'Callahan <robert at ocallahan.org
> >
> > wrote:
> >>  Wouldn't you consider the interoperability benefits to the Web
> platform?
> >
> > Not to mention the benefit of simplifying the platform a tiny bit by
> > removing a feature which mostly duplicates another much more well-known
> > feature.
>
> I'm all for interoperability, but who's going to twist Microsoft's arm
> to remove the feature from IE?
>

I don't know, but even if they keep it, we'll be OK.

As far as simplifying the platform, innerText is but one grain of sand
> on the beach.
>

Perhaps, but it's a popular beach. Every grain matters.

I think we agree innerText is redundant. The only reason to spec it would be
for Web compatibility. But if we have no evidence it is needed for
compatibility, we shouldn't spec it. (And personally, I think browsers
should refrain from exposing Web-facing features that are neither in
standards nor considered suitable for standarization, especially without a
prefix.)

>From my point of view, the status quo of innerText being supported in IE and
Webkit but unspecified and ignored by authors in practice is actually better
than adding innerText to the spec. If it's added to the spec, more authors
will discover it and start using it.

Maybe someone could do a search to find out how much innerText is used on
the Web?

Rob
-- 
"Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for
they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures
every day to see if what Paul said was true." [Acts 17:11]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20100815/838ba412/attachment-0001.htm>