[whatwg] Suggested changes to Web Forms 2.0, 2004-07-01 working draft
fantasai.lists at inkedblade.net
Fri Jul 9 03:17:29 PDT 2004
Matthew Thomas wrote:
>> User agents are expected to show an appropriate widget, such as a
> 29. Suggestion: Don't give UA implementors bad ideas. :-)
> The most efficient method of entering a date with the
> keyboard is with a datepicker (a multi-part text field
> with increment+decrement buttons), not with a calendar.
> This would also be easier to implement, more consistent
> with the other date/time controls, and more compact
> (reducing scrolling to get to other controls), than a
> calendar would be. Even for a pointing device, the most
> efficient interface (at least for choosing any date not
> in the current month) would involve menus opened from
> each segment of the datepicker (one-dimensional menus
> for year and month, and a two-dimensional menu for day),
> rather than using a calendar.
> * "calendar" --> "datepicker"
That's only if you know exactly which date you want to pick.
Works well for date-of-birth, but not for appointments. If I'm
setting up an appointment or picking a date for flying out of
the country, I'd rather see a calendar with the weekdays lined
up in a grid.
So, ideally, I'd have a datepicker like that given in
combined with a button on the side that pops up a calendar like
the one on http://continental.com/
> 45. Suggestion: Follow this by specifying robust error-
> -handling for when people stuff up specifying an accept
> * 'If an upload control or a form element has an
> invalid accept attribute, the value is assumed to be
> "*/*". Such an attribute for a file upload control
> still overrides any accept attribute for the
> relevant form element.'
> (Why? Because the faulty value is much more likely to be
> the author's attempt at a non-specialization exception
> to the form's rule, than an attempt at a specialization.
I'd rather see the thing ignored, which is the usual way of
handling errors like this.
>> 2.7. Extensions to the submit buttons
>> If a submit button is activated, then the submission uses the values
>> as given by the button that caused the activation, with missing
>> attributes having their values taken from the equivalent attributes
>> on the relevant form element, if any.
> 46. Suggestion: Split the sentence for readability.
> * "activation, with missing attributes having their
> values taken" --> "activation. Missing attributes
> take their values"
"Missing attributes take their values taken from the equivalent attributes
on the relevant form element, if any."
This sentence seems to say that when a submit button is activated,
if it is missing attributes, they are /added/ to the submit button
with the values taken from the form -- so if I call GetAttributeWhatever
for 'enctype' on the button and it didn't have it before activation,
it has it now.
>> 2.13. The autofocus attribute
>> UAs may ignore this attribute if the user has indicated (for example,
>> by starting to type in a form control) that he does not wish focus to
>> be changed.
> 58. Suggestion: Insist on this, as it is a security
> vulnerability. (Several times I have accidentally typed
> a password into a username field because the browser had
> returned focus to it just after I had focused the
> password field.)
> * "may" --> "must"
Since figuring out if the user does not wish focus to be changed
is rather subjective, this requirement should be a "should", not
> 63. Suggestion: Maybe I'm just getting old-fashioned, but I
> remember not so long ago "construct" wasn't a noun.
> * "an invalid construct" --> "invalid nesting"
More information about the whatwg