[whatwg] type="datetime" demo

Jim Ley jim.ley at gmail.com
Thu Aug 19 03:18:52 PDT 2004

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 18:14:13 +0000 (UTC), Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Jul 2004, Jim Ley wrote:
> > I don't personally agree that document.X implies anyelement.X and you
> I'm testing Node.X. Document and anyelement are both Nodes.

No, if it was a DOM conformant UA, you would be, however it's highly
likely not to be, if it was, there'd be no point checking any of it.

> > also need to check parentNode is an object before calling removeChild
> Not in this case, since the object is guarenteed to be in the tree.

No it's not!  you're again assuming that a particular DOM method
exists based on no evidence what so ever, this is not object

> > You don't check for support of Number.toFixed
> That's standard ECMAScript.

It's standard ECMAScript Edition 3.0, only a subset of browsers even
attempt to support this, and advanced browsers have seperated the
script version from the browser version, so you can anything there.

> > You don't check for native support of a datetime control.
> Yes, I do.

So it fails in FireFox 0.8 for example, which incorrectly assumes
datetime support.


More information about the whatwg mailing list