[whatwg] Suggested changes to Web Forms 2.0, 2004-07-01 working

[Matthew Raymond]

Jim Ley wrote:
>>   ??? You're worried about products with non-standards-body features
>>that degrade into supported standards?
> 
> Yes, because if input type=datetime then gets introduced differently
> we have a legacy problem.

    This is true of anything we'd introduce. For instance, <datalist> 
cold get changed around or removed. All of WF2 could have legacy 
problems if a standards body decides to change everything around. 
There's no way to eliminate that possibility. The only thing you can do 
is present the best possible solution. If you have a better solution, 
please present it.

>>   Why? Does Google not work on your machine?
> 
> 
> Yep, I couldn't find a single one that remotely came close, you said
> you'd just found some before that were good, but chose a woeful one
> simply because it was short.

    Try searching on "javascript isdate".

>>Besides, we can always
>>ask Dean Edwards to write as script like this while he's sleeping. 
> 
> As I say, I don't believe it can be done in under 10 lines, in fact
> I'm incredibly confident of it.  Dean is a very good scripter, maybe
> he'll rise to your challenge, but I'm willing to bet he won't be able
> to do it.

    He can do it in less than 45, which is the length of an example I 
found that handles varying lengths of months and leap years, returns 
true or false and provides an string for an error popup. Also keep in 
mind that Javascript can be stored in an external file that can be 
cached on the client.

    Of course, the web master could aways play the odds and to partial 
client-side validation in ten lines, then let the server catch the rest, 
which would probably result in very little additional bandwidth.

>> ...you assume that setDate will increment the month if
>>given an out-of-range date value.
> 
> 
> Which is an ECMAScript requirement

    Good to know.

>>   I'm confused. Do you want MORE input types, or are you suggesting
>>another attribute (which I believe some people on this mailing list
>>would oppose).
> 
> I'm not that sure of syntax, I've described what I feel is necessary
> in terms of functionality.

    Please make a list of the specific cases you want Web Forms 2.0 to 
be able to handle.