[whatwg] Web Forms 2.0 Feedback
dean at edwards.name
Tue Apr 5 15:55:38 PDT 2005
Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Mar 2005, Csaba Gabor wrote:
>>2. Repetition model.
>>The Draft has a huge amount of space devoted to this,
>>but I haven't been able to think of a single compelling
>>argument for it. Most of the control enhancements such
>>as validation are conveniences, after all, but what they
>>have going for them is that they are very compact. This
>>repetition model is huge and messy and there are simple
>>same thing. This developer's opinion is that I would
>>far rather roll my own and not even have the possibility
>>of using this construct.
I'd be interested to know what your home-rolled solution would look
like. If we can cater for your requirements then we have a flexible model.
produce and become even more complex when trying for a cross-browser
solution. What I like about the WF2 Repetition Model is that caters for
99% of cases. There will always be edge cases but existing DOM methods,
as you say, provide a means for building particular models already. In
other words, if you feel that the Repetition Model is inadequate, please
> Yeah, several people have said that. We're thinking about removing it. On
> the other hand, several people have said that it is a godsend and that
> they are so happy it is there because they are fed up of rolling their
> own. At the moment it's about equally matched, in fact.
> The model is pretty simple and relatively easy to implement, so I'm
> leaning towards keeping it.
Ian, I thought we'd sorted this out. We had exactly the same discussion
a few weeks back and nobody came up with any objections to the current
model. I quite like Olav's idea to separate the Repetition Model from
the existing WF2 spec. This would give us time to discuss it a bit more
without impacting the rest of WF2. Maybe the Repetition Model should be
separate anyway? Personally, if I was considering using it on a site,
I'd prefer to print off a separate spec to read. But that's just me. I
/do/ recognise that this is a bit of an editorial headache however... ;-)
More information about the whatwg