[whatwg] Web Forms 2.0 - Comments on sections 1 and 2

[Ian Hickson]

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, Laurens Holst wrote:
>
> About it being compatible for legacy users... I think Web Forms 2.0 will
> not be very compatible with that anyway :).

The idea is that WF2 pages should at least degrade sanely. The "title"
attribute at least does that.


>>> required attribute applies to all controls except radio buttons
>>> ===============================================================
>>> What about radio buttons in sets where none of the buttons are marked
>>> as checked? I really think this should apply to those as well.
>>
>> The problem is, which control do you put it on?
>
> Any of the grouped radio buttons will do?

How would it work, though? The model involves iterating through each
control. Would each radio have an "invalid" event fired on it? Would each
radio have to check all the other radios in the group? What's the validity
of an unchecked radio? etc.

I couldn't work out a sane model. I'm open to proposals.


>> I've changed to to autofocus="autofocus" for now, although autofocus=""
>> (or "true") would also work with the current definition.
>
> Ok, better I think. XHTML sets this convention for boolean HTML
> attributes: http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#C_10 ... As boolean attributes
> in this form aren't something uncommon in HTML I don't see why you
> shouldn't use them.

Actually SGML set this convention in 1986 in order to be able to omit the
attribute name. XML then inherited this for backwards compatibility, but
strategically lost the ability to omit the attribute name, thus putting us
in the mess we are in now.

But sure. Let's use the foo="foo" format for boolean attributes. :-)

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'