[whatwg] Re: Web Forms 2: Altenative to <select editable>
malcolm-what at farside.org.uk
Tue Jun 15 08:30:47 PDT 2004
Jim Ley writes:
> [select-editable implemented as a fieldset snipped]
It sounds like there are still some issues to work out with that solution
(which isn't surprising). Could you try to firm it up as a more concrete
proposal? It's an interesting idea.
> 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.
The benefit is twofold: immediate feedback, and richer controls. If we can
declaratively mark as field as numeric, the UA can prevent the user from
entering non-numeric data. It can also choose to present a control specific
to numeric entry, maybe a spin-control or similar.
I agree that over-validation is very bad, however, Ian's current spec for
the 'email' and 'tel' types refers to the relevant normative RFC's, so I
can't see any problems there, unless those specs are incorrect (could be
true for the 'tel' type, I suppose, highly unlikely for 'email').
It's always possible that a UA might implement it's own ideas about what
forms a valid email address, but that's a conformance problem in the UA, not
a problem with the spec per se.
I'm interested - why would anyone think your email address was invalid? I
can't say I've had any problems, though some servers have a tendency to
force the whole address to upper case, which is very annoying (and illegal).
More information about the whatwg