[whatwg] I dont like "successful"
Ian Hickson
ian at hixie.ch
Tue Dec 14 00:03:48 PST 2004
On Sun, 12 Dec 2004, [ISO-8859-1] Olav Junker Kjær wrote:
>
> Right, there is need for a flag to indicate if a control should be
> validated and take part in submission. [...]
Ok. I reworked the relevant parts a bit, nuked the "successful" DOM
attribute, added a "willConsiderForSubmission" attribute, and tried to fix
up all the various references in the document to make sense in this new
world.
Please let me know if I missed anything. It's quite possible that this
broke stuff, so I encourage people to proof-read all the changes
carefully, and to let me know if I messed anything up. (In particular,
does anything now talk about things that make no sense any more? e.g.
paragraphs in other parts of the spec that "explained" things?)
I considered doing this as a two-step definition (defining the "will be
considered for submission" concept and the "willConsiderForSubmission" DOm
attribute separately) but for now I just made the algorithms refer to the
DOM attribute, so there's only one definition. It looks uglier when you're
reading it but it was easier to do for now.
--
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