[whatwg] Suggested changes to Web Forms 2.0, 2004-07-01 working

Jim Ley jim.ley at gmail.com
Thu Aug 19 06:28:02 PDT 2004

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 13:07:17 +0000 (UTC), Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Jul 2004, Jim Ley wrote:
> > Rather than the current situation where everything is an INPUT I don't
> > see the difference there.
> "input" conveys that the data is a single field of data input.

Which isn't the case in any of these combined controls...  so I don't
think that's a good argument.

> > Also, degrading to IE6 is not a required long term strategy surely? So
> > at some point we can stop worrying about it and create a sensible new
> > model.
> The "sensible new model" is presumably XForms.

No, I've made no comment on X-Forms, I don't like XForms, but not
liking XForms doesn't mean I have to agree with this.

> If it wasn't for IE, we wouldn't have to even _consider_ abusing <object>,
> so I don't really see your point here anyway.

Wouldn't we?  I certainly would, Unlike most people I care about
degrading on all old UA's, not just IE6, you seem to think everyone
upgrades immediately, but I don't, not least because I know there's no
way I can update my copy of Opera to something newer, I'm sure other
people are in similar positions.

> > I much prefer it to overloading INPUT.
> One possibility that has been risen (and which will be considered to WF3
> once we have more experience with the datetime controls in WF2) is to use
> a new element for the date/time controls. That would be preferable to the
> <object> solution.

Perhaps, so why not do it now?  you're suggesting we create as a
standard something now that we know is wrong, why not do it right in
the first place?

> But we shouldn't try to solve problems that aren't obviously problems. It
> isn't clear to me that the current date/time fields have inadequate
> fallback; 

Yes, but it is clear to me, but we've been over this...


More information about the whatwg mailing list