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