[whatwg] Suggested changes to Web Forms 2.0, 2004-07-01 working
ian at hixie.ch
Thu Jul 15 08:34:38 PDT 2004
On Sat, 10 Jul 2004, Jim Ley wrote:
> > >
> > > Not that I don't see the ability to say I'm expecting a date here is a
> > > bad thing, I just don't particularly see that that is associated with a
> > > particular rendering is a good thing, nor is the case proven that there
> > > are use cases for it on the web.
> > It isn't associated with a particular rendering, so your concern here is
> > already addressed by the spec. Horrah!
> Nope, because that explicitly does not answer my problem
So that it is associated with a particular rendering is a problem, but
that it isn't associated with a particular rendering doesn't address the
problem... I see.
> please can you check back in the thread and note the particular points
I replied to all the points I could see, let me know if I missed any.
> ...there are others, but the most important two are:
> How to provide legacy clients with appropriate information without
> confusing WF2 clients.
This was answered several times, culminating (thanks to the ideas given on
this thread and others) in the demo I mentioned.
> How to suggest the appearance of the widgets by the author (who is in
> the best position to know the task involved).
That will be dealt with by Web Controls. Just like there is no way to
specify the look of controls in HTML4 or XForms, there is not yet a way to
specify the look of controls in WF2. The Web Controls spec is intended to
address all three of these specs at once.
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
More information about the whatwg