[whatwg] Web Forms 2.0 comments
ian at hixie.ch
Mon Jun 21 07:38:46 PDT 2004
On Mon, 14 Jun 2004, Sander wrote:
> The parsing of [ID] is by default limited to the "for", "form",
> "headers", "id", "name" and "template" attributes. For those cases where
> inserting the [ID] in another attribute is desired, a new attribute
> "parseattributes" (needs a better name, obviously) is defined for use
> within a repetition template. This attribute is used to specify a
> comma-separated list of those attributes of descendant elements in which
> the [ID]-string will be searched for and replaced by the repetition
> block's index. This specified list of attributes replaces the default.
> Thus, if this attribute exists, but is empty, no attributes will be
I really don't like this. It might be the only solution though.
How about this? We say that all attributes are processed, except those
starting with the two character string "", which just have their two
leading square brackets removed and are otherwise untouched.
Then any unsafe attributes can just have "" put at the front.
Ugly, but at least we don't have a weird attribute and a list of magical
attributes that get processed...
>>> More on repetition: I find the existence of the <repeat> element next to
>>> the repeat attribute with numerical value to be confusing. I suggest
>>> dropping the latter. (Comparing against an older draft, I vaguely
>>> suspect this already being the plan, with the necessary editing simply
>>> not having been done yet.)
>> Not sure what you meant by this.
> You specify both repetition blocks (3.2.2: "An element ... with the repeat
> attribute ..., with the attribute's value equal to an integer") and initial
> repetition blocks (3.5.4: "The repeat element ... is used to insert
> repetition blocks without having to explicitly copy the repetition template
> markup in the source document.")
> I just now grokked that the former might exist so that you can (dynamically)
> set the "repeat" attribute on an existing element to turn it into a
> repetition block, but the benefit of setting an attribute versus replacing
> a node seems very small to me, and the existence of two ways to create a
> repetition block both confusing and wasteful.
The existence of the numeric "repeat" _attribute_ is largely because when
you hit the "Add" button, there needs to be a way of distinguishing the
repetition blocks from just random other blocks. That is, authors won't
generally use the numeric "repeat" attribute (it isn't mentioned in the
intro, for instance).
> I at least oppose the idea of removing it; no matter how odd or
> unconventional (though really, it's not that bad - it's just a
> placeholder for content to be added at run-time), the benefits of its
> existence are huge.
>> Maybe we should drop "precision" altogether and just have "step", then
>> make it apply to all the numeric and date/time types.
> That's throwing away the ability to specify logarithmic numbers. Not
> used very often admittedly (at least in my experience), but the
> possibility of them is very welcome nonetheless.
We can add them back if there really is a good use case. I haven't seen
one, to be honest. I originally added it because it fit into the model
easily. It no longer fits into the model easily.
> I'm personally leaning toward the earlier suggestion of a list of
> datetime-part values ""y,m" for expdate, "y,w" for week, "y,m,d,h,M""
> (which you called "nice and generic, but ... much more complicated"),
> but extended to (for example) "h,15M" - which would specify a precision
> of 15 minute increments for a time consisting of hours and minutes. I
> think authors will be more than willing to put up with the complexity of
> this (I know I would be) to have just one general purpose datetime
> element which can deal with all the weird requirements which comes up in
> actual use.
Is the current text (using step) acceptable?
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
More information about the whatwg