[whatwg] Incremental rendering of forms
Ian Hickson
ian at hixie.ch
Thu Aug 26 09:05:38 PDT 2004
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004, Jim Ley wrote:
>>>> I have had repeated requests for this from Web authors, and received
>>>> numerous notes praising the idea since publishing a draft with it in.
>>
>> * Not changing the content model of HTML element like <table> is quite
>> important since there are many legacy parsing issues involved
>
> What? could you describe an actual use case situation here, that makes
> this relevant? (ie a table that semantically is more than one form, and
> this isn't even a use case, it's a constraint brought about from other
> use cases perhaps - but which ones?)
Other people have already mentioned this on this list. It is common to
want to have tables where each row is a separate form.
>> * Prefilling fields that are not contiguous from two different files
>> (as in:
>> English [ ............ ]
>> Norwegian [ ...........]
>> English [ ............ ]
>> Norwegian [ ...........]
>> ...where the English fields are one form, and the Norwegian fields
>> are another.)
>
> Could you explain more what you mean here - what does "prefilling
> fields" and "from two different files" mean.
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-forms/current-work/#seeding
>> * Having subforms, where you have, e.g., one form covering most of the
>> page, and then little forms within it.
>
> could you again explain more about this in terms of a use case, it
> seems like you've gone from the feature to justify it. Use cases
> involve uses, not functionality.
One example of this kind of case is a form which accepts an address, where
the post code can be filled in separately, and where there is a small form
for this purpose which can do postcode number lookup.
Similar things for, e.g., looking up product part numbers while filling up
a bigger form.
It can also be seen on big sites which may have a form for the whole page,
and then small forms in sidebars and the like for, e.g., search forms.
>> * Being able to predefine the form submission URIs at the top of the
>> page and then using them without having to think about what form an
>> element is in.
>
> I'm getting even more confused now... how does having forms not a
> member of their containing form element allow you to "not think about
> form an element is in" it seems to me that it makes it absolutely
> explicit that you know what form an element is in - since you have to
> add it to the element. I'm obviously mis-understanding.
I meant not think about the structure. Many authors have told me they
don't like having to think about whether the element they are adding to
their large document is a child of the <form> element or whether they have
to move the <form> element up a few divs (or tables) to make it include
the element they just added.
> Can I ask again for some use cases - those that made you decide "right
> the solution to that is having form elements in different forms" -
> rather than ones that you seem to have made up given the premise that
> such things exist. Or at the very least expand these so I can
> understand them.
If what I included in this e-mail is not enough for you, then I don't know
what else to say, sorry.
--
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
More information about the whatwg
mailing list