[whatwg] Re: Web Forms 2: Altenative to <select editable>

Ian Hickson ian at hixie.ch
Thu Jun 24 08:41:08 PDT 2004

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004, Malcolm Rowe wrote:
> Ian Hickson writes:
>> Ok I read the thread on <select editable> and here is a summary of the
>> ideas that seemed worth considering:
>> [<select editable>]
>> Con: In down-level clients, can only select from the list.
> To be honest, I think that this 'Con' is a show-stopper for this method. If
> we have to choose between the legacy version being a 'select' or being 'an
> editable' (i.e., a text box), then I think we should choose the latter.

Fair point.

> As you point out, we do also have the option of using both: a text box
> paired with a select, in some form. While that provides the right
> functionality in legacy clients, it'd be quite complex to author and use
> (at the server-side), and I'd imagine, very complex for UA authors to
> support.

Yeah, I'm not sure it's worth the effort.

> Just for the record, what I eventually ended up suggesting was something
> you didn't mention. It worked out to something like this:
>    <input type="email" name="test" data="...">
>     <option>foo</option>
>     <option>bar</option>
>    </input>
> .. but I also noted several problems with that approach.

That wouldn't be parsed that way in HTML (tag soup) parsers.

Since <input> has no end tag, the <input> and <option> elements there
would be siblings, and you'd end up with browsers doing all kinds of
strange things.

It could work in XHTML-only pages, but we'd need a solution in the
meantime for HTML4 pages.

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

More information about the whatwg mailing list