[whatwg] Alternative datepicker syntax

[Matthew Thomas]

On 1 Jul, 2004, at 8:32 PM, Jim Ley wrote:
>
> On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 19:45:55 +0000 (UTC), Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch>  
> wrote:
> ...
>> CSS is quite capable of doing most widget looks
>
> I'm not interested in widget looks - I'm interested in a date control  
> being 3 fields, since that is what users understand - can CSS do this?
> ...

There's actually a good point here. A vanilla text control isn't  
necessarily the best thing for a datepicker to degrade to in non-WF2  
clients.

Consider this syntax instead:

<datepicker id="expiry" elements="m,y"> <!-- or similar -->
   <select id="month">
     <option value="1">Jan</option>
     <option value="2">Feb</option>
     <option value="3">Mar</option>
     <option value="4">Apr</option>
     <option value="5">May</option>
     <option value="6">Jun</option>
     <option value="7">Jul</option>
     <option value="8">Aug</option>
     <option value="9">Sep</option>
     <option value="10">Oct</option>
     <option value="11">Nov</option>
     <option value="12">Dec</option>
   </select>
   <input id="year" type="text">
</datepicker>

This syntax is more brittle, because it leaves people with no recourse  
if the author doesn't bother to include (or test) the non-WF2  
alternative. (Compare  
<http://www.google.com/search? 
q=%22This+page+uses+frames%2C+but+your+browser+doesn%27t%22+- 
noframes>.) But if authors *do* implement and test such a fallback,  
it'll be much easier to use than having to enter an ISO date complete  
with Ts and Zs.

So the question is, which probability is greater for the average person  
using a non-WF2 UA?
(1) that they'll be skilled enough to enter an ISO date,
     complete with Ts and Zs;
(2) that the author will remember to include and test a
     non-WF2 fallback.

(Apologies if this has been suggested before.)

-- 
Matthew Thomas
http://mpt.net.nz/