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

Jim Ley jim.ley at gmail.com
Fri Jul 9 07:01:37 PDT 2004

On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 09:49:07 -0400, Matthew Raymond
<mattraymond at earthlink.net> wrote:
> Jim Ley wrote:

> 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.

Yes there is, keep implementations to non-shipped, or optional modes
so that we can prove the concept without actually having any sites use
the behaviour, implementations required for ensuring the spec is sane,
and implementations shipped are vefry different things.

>    Try searching on "javascript isdate".

nope, still not found one, the one you seem to be talking about is the
constrained format version, remember I do not believe we can do
constrained format in legacy UA's, simply because we cannot provide
the hint on how to do it without confusing WF2 clients.  Therefore we
have to be able to accept any random content.

>    He can do it in less than 45, 

Which is 4 times the length of the 10 I suggested, so not really
relevant to the discussion.

> > 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.

They're made on the list, Ian will pick them up I'm sure.  That's what
he's said he'll do.


More information about the whatwg mailing list