[whatwg] Suggested changes to Web Forms 2.0, 2004-07-01 working
ian at hixie.ch
Tue Aug 17 17:04:15 PDT 2004
On Mon, 19 Jul 2004, George Lund wrote:
> Your suggestion [Jim] in ciwah was that we have
> > <object name=datetime classid="urn:wtfwg:datetime">
> > Day:<input name=day>
> > Month: <input name=month>
> > Year:<input name=day>
> > Time:<input name=time>
> > </object>
> My problem with this that now we have to overload the object element for every
> extension we want to make to HTML. Ultimately everything becomes an object,
> which isn't very "semantic".
I strongly agree with that. Object's semantic is that it brings in an
external resource; using some sort of classid hack that way is, IMHO,
> But I do agree that the more traditional HTML-like approach would have been
> not to try to force the existing input element to do everything by means of
> the type attribute. Perhaps a new element should have been made, like this:
> <datetime_input name="mydatetime">
> Day:<input name=day>
> Month: <input name=month>
> Year:<input name=day>
> Time:<input name=time>
> I'm not saying my choice of names is any good but maybe the idea is helpful?
> If it was already rejected then apologies.
It's a reasonable idea; I think we should see how the current proposals
are received by Web authors before changing it again, though. Maybe for WF3?
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
More information about the whatwg