[whatwg] Should editable elements have placeholder attribute?
ian at hixie.ch
Wed Aug 29 16:27:37 PDT 2012
On Sun, 17 Jun 2012, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 1:11 AM, Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote:
> > I strongly disagree. <input> and <textarea> are high-level constructs,
> > so it's fine for them to be defined by the UA's platform. But
> > contenteditable is a very low-level primitive. We can't just punt on
> > how it interacts with CSS; otherwise people will have no way to
> > reliably make UIs with it.
> I don't know why you think contenteditable is "lower-level" than
By "high level" I mean something that is self-contained, usable as a
standalone feature, which typically integrates with other features in an
atomic fashion; "lower-level", then, means something that in comparison
requires more work to use, can only be used in conjunction with something
else, etc. By analogy, a fruit juice box is high-level: it comes with its
own straw, it doesn't need any additional tools to open it, it provides a
final product without requiring any additional work. On the other hand, a
can of frozen grape concentrate requires a bowl in which to mix the
concentrate and some water, a spoon to stir them together, a jug from
which to pour the result, a glass in which to pour it and from which to
drink the resulting fruit juice.
<input type=text> is a high-level construct: it provides a self-contained
place in which text can be entered, it plugs straight into the form
submission system, it exposes hooks for setting the value or retrieving
the user's input that do not require knowing how the control works.
contenteditable="", on the other hand, exposes the DOM directly, has no
integration with other features like form submission, has a much less
obvious boundary between it and surrounding content... if you want to use
it in real content, there's no way to do it without script of some kind,
and if you want to use it to do anything especially compelling, you need a
lot of script (to provide all the UI for formatting, etc).
This isn't a criticism of contenteditable="". Low-level primitives are the
building blocks of platforms. But it does mean that we have different
tradeoffs to make in the designs of the features.
> >> In the end this is the check that I'm using at the moment (I didn't
> >> perform extensive tests, just enough to check that it seemed to work)
> >> var value = data.replace( /[\n|\t]*/g, '' ).toLowerCase();
> >> if ( !value || value == '<br>' || value == '<p> <br></p>' || value ==
> >> '<p><br></p>' || value == '<p> </p>' )
> >> return true;
> > Now there's a problem we should fix. Having five different representations
> > of "nothing" seems like a terrible position for us to be in.
> If you type some stuff and then delete it all, the desired result will
> vary based on lots of factors, e.g.:
> * Whether <div> or <p> is being used for paragraph separators. Both
> <p><br></p> and <div><br></div> might make sense for "nothing",
> depending. This is author-configurable using the
> defaultParagraphSeparator command.
> * Whether there was any styling present before. If all the text was
> previously bold, for instance, deleting everything might result in
> something like <p><b><br></b></p>, because per spec, deletion doesn't
> remove style tags from empty lines.
> * Whether there was any other special markup. If something (like
> execCommand("insertHTML")) made the first line have <p id="foo">, then
> deleting everything would result in <p id="foo"><br></p>.
> * What the author specified as the initial contents of the editable
> area. If you have <div contenteditable><br></div> to start with, and
> the user puts the cursor there and then types "foo" and then deletes
> it, you'll go back to having just <br>, because nothing ever inserted
> a <p> or <div> or anything. (As soon as the user hits Enter, both the
> old and new lines are wrapped in a paragraph separator per spec,
> although only IE/Opera do this right now.)
> Really, you can have any HTML markup at all in contenteditable, and we
> can't avoid that. There's not going to be any reliable way to figure
> out what "nothing" is if you can't answer the same question for
> arbitrary HTML.
Maybe the right way to detect "nothing" is to compare textContent against
"" and then to look for specific elements that count as palpable content,
like <img>. Would it make sense to provide an API for that?
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
More information about the whatwg