[whatwg] I dont like "successful"
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
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