[whatwg] Re: Web Forms 2: Altenative to <select editable>
jim.ley at gmail.com
Tue Jun 15 07:56:53 PDT 2004
On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 15:48:18 +0100, Malcolm Rowe
<malcolm-what at farside.org.uk> wrote:
> [I assume the omission of the group in the cc: line was an accident rather
> than a wish to keep this private. If not, sorry!]
Oops, sure was! Sorry about that.
> Well, I imagine the newer clients could just emulate the legacy clients in
> terms of form submission. That way, the server doesn't need to do anything
> (and it's not that bad an option, is it?).
I think that would be a good option, but it would limit what we could
provide in the "legacy content" with my suggestion, you could but any
number of form controls inside the fieldset, which wouldn't
necessarily have a 1-1 mapping to the select-multiple you'd want to
use. But yes if a policy could be worked out, I think it would be a
pretty good option.
> Well, from my point-of-view, I think I'd find the 'strongly-typed' input
> controls and validation enhancements the most useful,
Over client-side validation though is one of the worst problems on the
web, for example email addresses and telephone no's., loads of people
reject my email address in their forms, and having to replicate all
the validation on the server anyway, I'm not sure what the real value
is in the extra validation.
> I could imagine UAs merging 'their' autocomplete list with the
> server-provided autocomplete list,
Ah, right, I was wondering what you meant :-)
More information about the whatwg