[whatwg] Various attributes

Jim Ley jim.ley at gmail.com
Wed Jun 16 10:04:41 PDT 2004

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 16:55:01 +0000 (UTC), Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Jun 2004, Jim Ley wrote:
> > Why require the ^ and $ in the regexp, what's the point in the restriction?
> They are not required; they are implied. The reason is that otherwise
> authors would almost always have to add them, which would be the source of
> much confusion.

I disagree, there's many times where I've been happy with matching a
regexp in validation that didn't include the begin and end, and
because they are implied, there's no way to not have them, meaning
we'd have to have much more complicated regexps.
> > Overriding title to include the expected format as well as the normal
> > accessibility uses is incompatible (because the resulting "... could cause
> > the UA to display an alert such as:" will likely not make sense with the
> > relevant normal use of title in it.
> Let me know if the new text is better.
> > Why doesn't the required attribute apply to check-box's (use case"do you
> > agree to the terms and conditions?")
> If a checkbox is required, there is no point having a checkbox. For "do
> you agree" type checkboxes, the server should handle the "don't agree"
> case, IMHO.

This is _client side_ validation designed to optimise the client
behaviour, the use case is a very commonly used feature, I still don't
understand why it shouldn't be.

> getElementById's behaviour is undefined, but whatever the UA does with
> gEBI, that's what the form attribute should do. That's what the text is
> saying.

Then it needs clarifying, as that's not what I understood from it.

> > autocomplete:  the MUST restriction on off not pre-filling is too
> > restrictive, what is the motivation of this?
> Banks require this of UAs anyway. IE and Mozilla implemented this years
> ago. WF2 is just documenting implemented behaviour.

Banks DO NOT require this, as I explained it's trivial to override in
all existing UA's with a MUST restriction it would become impossible
to override.

> SHOULD makes no sense. If they don't follow the attribute, they clearly
> don't support it. The entire point of the attribute is to ensure that the
> UA never record the data.

So the site should be in more control than the user?

> > autofocus - this is incompatible with basically accessibility
> Why? It can be done now with JS, surely a declarative solution is better?

I think WCAG 2.0 makes it clear, I think thw WHATWG needs to acquire a
member some accessibility expertise, as moving focus automatically is
pretty clear to even my limited experience.



More information about the whatwg mailing list