and-py at doxdesk.com
Thu Jun 10 02:35:31 PDT 2004
Peter-Paul Koch <gassinaumasis at hotmail.com> wrote:
> First of all, when I read the (very interesting) position paper, it
> struck me that every described feature can be implemented in
Am inclined to agree. I would prefer not to standardise mechanisms that
could already be implemented just as well using an appropriate
client-side scripting library.
However, I *do* like many of the proposed extensions, especially where
they offer a reasonable level of backwards compatibility.
For example the new form element types and restrictions give the browser
the opportunity to present more polished interfaces, whilst still
allowing older UAs to input text (because legacy UAs will typically
treat an unknown or missing type attribute as the default 'text'). There
are also some features here that couldn't currently be done with
scripting, for example localised text and timezone support in date
controls, and e-mail/uri selection.
[BTW, 'expdate' should clearly be named 'month'; it is not explicitly a
credit card expiry date.]
Validation is something that can be done by script, but could benefit
from a standard browser interface. I would like to see the 'validate'
event on form do the 'alerting the user that the entered value is
unacceptable' action in all cases, even manually calling .validate()
Required fields, input.labels, "Handling characters outside the
submission character set", fieldset-disabled and the suggested addition
of a way to include HTTP Authentication login/logout on a web page are
autofocus would also be good, if it's meant to only focus when the
window itself has focus, ie. not steal focus from other windows. This
can't currently be done from JS so I assume this is what it's for.
Things I'm not especially keen on, OTOH:
- repeating form controls. Seems a *lot* of added complication for
something that can currently be done pretty easily with DOM
(cloneNode etc.). The name--hacking bit is especially nasty,
a way of including literal square brackets seems to be missing,
and id duplication inside the template seems not be catered for.
- <output> seems pretty redundant, providing no functionality that
can't currently be done just as well using styled readonly inputs
or plain spans.
- the FormImplementation method of remoting seems redundant. DOM
Level 3 LS and XMLHttpRequest already cover this ground, I would
prefer to see browsers standardise on either of these.
- user-modify. I am VEHEMENTLY opposed to the IE model of being
able to arbitrarily edit non-form elements. This proposal has
all the disadvantages of contentEditable, without the advantage
of actually being IE-compatible. Suggest instead:
<textarea type="text/html">some <em>emed/em> blah</textarea>
which would much better fit the current Forms model and would
also be compatible with legacy and other browsers that cannot
supply HTML editing facilities. Other MIME types might also be
appropriate, eg. text/xml, or text/csv to get a full tabular
> maybe except for the server sent events and the clipboard
> api (but even in those cases it might be possible).
Clipboard API I don't really want to see, given the problems IE's
implementation of such brought up. A better standardised drag-and-drop
interface would be great though, as doing it with mouse events and IE's
proprietary events is annoying-to-impossible to get right all the time.
I really like the idea of server-side events, though I would prefer to
have them set up by a scripting call rather than an HTML element.
I would be particularly interested in sending DOM Mutation Events down a
wire to synchronise DOMs, especially if the client end could send
addEventListener requests to the server end to specify what it was
interested in. That's not strictly web application-related, but it'd be
Sure, and for normal web sites or documents reliance on JS is highly
undesirable. However with "web applications" (assuming we've decided
what they are...) it is unrealistic to unexpect that their entire
functionality could be implemented without any client-side scripting. So
if scripting is going to be a bit necessary, it might as well be a lot
> To me, [eBay and Amazon] are not applications but web sites
I agree. That's not to say they couldn't evolve to include or be web
applications, but their core functionality IMO isn't and doesn't need to be.
mailto:and at doxdesk.com
More information about the whatwg