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

Jim Ley jim.ley at gmail.com
Thu Jul 22 01:59:39 PDT 2004

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 23:48:59 +0100, George Lund <george at lund.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <851c8d310407170828254675a4 at mail.gmail.com>, Jim Ley
> <jim.ley at gmail.com> writes
> Your suggestion in ciwah was that we have
> ><object name=datetime classid="urn:wtfwg:datetime">
> >Day:<input name=day>
> >Month: <input name=month>
> >Year:<input name=day>
> >Time:<input name=time>
> ></object>
> My problem with this that now we have to overload the object element for
> every extension we want to make to HTML.  Ultimately everything becomes
> an object, which isn't very "semantic".

Rather than the current situation where everything is an INPUT  I
don't see the difference there.  OBJECT is already a form control -
for things which can degrade differently as might be found in the more
"advanced" specs then something other than object may be appropriate. 
 This though is to address the atrocious degradation of the date

Also, degrading to IE6 is not a required long term strategy surely? 
So at some point we can stop worrying about it and create a sensible
new model.

> But I do agree that the more traditional HTML-like approach would have
> been not to try to force the existing input element to do everything by
> means of the type attribute.  

I much prefer it to overloading INPUT.


More information about the whatwg mailing list