[whatwg] Suggested changes to Web Forms 2.0, 2004-07-01 working
mattraymond at earthlink.net
Fri Jul 9 07:36:27 PDT 2004
Jim Ley wrote:
> 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.
And then the implementation can be held hostage by the standards
bodies for as long as they want. No thanks.
> 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.
Now you're just being silly. For instance, is "10/7/04" the same as
"October 7th, 2004", "July 10th, 2004" or "April 7th, 2010"? A format
has to be chosen. It's not optional. WF2 solves this problem by using an
ISO standard. In legacy clients, we don't have a fixed format for
submission, so we have to ensure the submitted date has a SPECIFIC one.
>> 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.
Which, as you admit, is an arbitrary number you picked, and you've
already stated that you need a non-JS solution, so why are we going on
>> 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.
Fine, then take your chances with Ian. I have better things to do
than to search over 1,100 messages for your sake.
More information about the whatwg