[whatwg] Re: several messages
ian at hixie.ch
Thu Jul 1 05:20:12 PDT 2004
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004, voracity wrote:
> Hmmm, I don't mind this. It's nicer than the first example in the sense
> that I would not have to write any JS for either WF2 UAs or legacy UAs
> under any of the use cases I described earlier (with additional
> attributes). However, the first example is much cleaner for what is
> probably the most common case.
> I'm not sure which I prefer. On these examples _alone_ I think I prefer
> the second (so long as WF2 _does_ submit 2 values).
The proposal was to allow both. In both, though, a WF2 UA would only
submit one value, not two. Why would you want two?
I agree with most of the rest of what you said.
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
More information about the whatwg