innerHTML is dangerous.[1] You definitely should not use that for “text”.
Text should either be textContent[2] or innerText[3]. InnerText makes more sense from my perspective. [1]https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Element/innerHTML#Security_considerations <https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Element/innerHTML#Security_considerations> [2]https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Node/textContent <https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Node/textContent> [3]https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/HTMLElement/innerText <https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/HTMLElement/innerText> > On Apr 4, 2019, at 8:00 PM, Carlos Rovira <carlosrov...@apache.org> wrote: > > ok I'm talking about Jewel components that uses same arq as Basic since are > based on it. So, for example TextInput, TextArea, Alert, Label, CheckBox, > RadioButton, Button, and some more has text() and html() getters setters. > > I recently changed Jewel Alert to use html instead of text, I'm thinking if > I should make all Jewel components to have just one property (maybe better > "text" than "html") that can get just text or text with tags. This will > save many bytes I think > > For example in Jewel Button we have the same code, so html seems not needed > at all: > > [Bindable("textChange")] > /** > * @copy org.apache.royale.html.Label#text > * > * @langversion 3.0 > * @playerversion Flash 10.2 > * @playerversion AIR 2.6 > * @productversion Royale 0.9.4 > */ > public function get text():String > { > return (element as HTMLButtonElement).innerHTML; > } > > /** > * @private > */ > public function set text(value:String):void > { > (element as HTMLButtonElement).innerHTML = value; > this.dispatchEvent(new Event('textChange')); > } > > [Bindable("htmlChange")] > /** > * @copy org.apache.royale.html.Label#html > * > * @langversion 3.0 > * @playerversion Flash 10.2 > * @playerversion AIR 2.6 > * @productversion Royale 0.9.4 > */ > public function get html():String > { > return (element as HTMLButtonElement).innerHTML; > } > > /** > * @private > */ > public function set html(value:String):void > { > (element as HTMLButtonElement).innerHTML = value; > this.dispatchEvent(new Event('textChange')); > } > > El jue., 4 abr. 2019 a las 16:14, Harbs (<harbs.li...@gmail.com>) escribió: > >> The HTML elements have text and innerHTML which correspond to the HTML >> element properties. >> >> I’m not sure what the logic of the basic components is. >> >>> On Apr 4, 2019, at 3:18 PM, Kessler CTR Mark J < >> mark.kessler....@usmc.mil.INVALID> wrote: >>> >>> The "text" property is probably just for compatibility with the flex >> components if we are talking about things like "TextInput". Is the "text" >> property just syntax sugar / wrapping for the html property? >>> >>> >>> -Mark K >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Carlos Rovira [mailto:carlosrov...@apache.org] >>> Sent: Thursday, April 4, 2019 4:59 AM >>> To: dev@royale.apache.org >>> Subject: [Non-DoD Source] text vs html >>> >>> Hi >>> >>> in many components we have properties "text" and "html", and I was trying >>> to figure what we need this duplicate currently. >>> My bet is that just html (or text with html tags support) will be >>> sufficient. >>> Is there any need to have this double property, it seems to me not PAYG >> and >>> html supports text with more things, so not reason for this, at least >> that >>> I know >>> >>> thanks >>> >>> -- >>> Carlos Rovira >>> http://about.me/carlosrovira >> >> > > -- > Carlos Rovira > http://about.me/carlosrovira
