[whatwg] Suggested changes to Web Forms 2.0, 2004-07-01 working
jim.ley at gmail.com
Fri Jul 9 07:42:27 PDT 2004
On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 10:36:27 -0400, Matthew Raymond
<mattraymond at earthlink.net> wrote:
> 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.
So it's better to have bad behaviour shipped to users, than waiting
until it's fixed? Standards bodies don't hold implementations
> In legacy clients, we don't have a fixed format for
> submission, so we have to ensure the submitted date has a SPECIFIC one.
Which has been my point all along, yet no-one has provide a way that
legacy clients can be told the specific format without confusing the
WF2 users. Other than your ignore element approach, but I can't find
an ignore element anywhere in the current draft, so I don't feel
that's yet appropriate.
> 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
> about this?
because it reflects the complexity of the task, and how the datetime
is not IMO making the life of authors easier, which is one of the
goals of WF2.
> Fine, then take your chances with Ian. I have better things to do
> than to search over 1,100 messages for your sake.
That's okay, Ian obviously doesn't... (well if he misses it then I can
raise it again, no point just re-posting what I've already said after
More information about the whatwg