[whatwg] Web Forms 2.0 - what does it extend , definition of same,
dolphinling at myrealbox.com
Tue Jan 11 16:20:55 PST 2005
Jim Ley wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 14:34:36 +0000, James Graham <jg307 at cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>>Jim Ley wrote:
>>>I'm looking for use cases
>>If a use case isn't a case where it would be used, and be beneficial,
>>what is it?
>>1) A well debugged, easy to use, implementation. Better surely than a
>>thousand slightly different, slightly broken implementations.
> Except the declared policy is that the implementations will be done
> will be well debugged and easy to use for a very long time if ever.
> Are you creating them? Is the WHAT-WG creating them? In any case the
> examples of HTML development is that developing browsers results in
> lots of slightly different, slightly broken implementations, that you
> end up using script to cope with.
That's not what I'LL be doing, I'll be using <input type='email'> so WF2
browsers can get easy client-side validation, and leaving the non-WF2
browsers to use server-side validation. As I understand it, the policy
not that every page using WF2 features must implement them fully in
>>2) A better UI. An <input type="date"> can provide me with a calendar.
> You can do the same in script, indeed thousands of site already do this.
Once again, I'll be leaving it as <input type='date'> in my pages, and
using server-side validation. If someone wants to see a calendar instead
of writing the date out by hand, they can get a WF2 browser.
This is because I don't require idiot-proof usability. I probably
really easy to give people who /do/ have a WF2 browser one if they want,
and makes the page more semantic, too.
> Especially as without the IE implementation layer, it'll be completely
> irrelevant, no-one will use it.
I will. I don't need type=email/number/etc. to be implemented in
IE--it'll be checked at the server anyway. It's still /compatible/ with
IE, since the values can still be entered in, but IE users don't get any
of the benefits.
> The basic argument is that Web Forms fulfils no use cases that cannot
> be achieved with script (given that in a backwards compatibility
> requirement web-forms will have to be optional like script) so rather
> than waste the limited development time of the browsers on this, they
> focus on more useful areas to the web-application developer.
Web Forms fulfills the use case that a large majority of web
"developers" fall into--for those people who learn from a tutorial,
barely know html, and have never read the spec, it's something simple
where the parts they need can be explained in the tutorial they learned
It also fulfills the use case that another group of developers falls
into--for those to whom accessibility is not a necessity, and who would
not use any client-side vaildation at all (perhaps because it's not
worth their time, or maybe they don't know how and and it's not worth
the time to learn), WF2 allows them to easily add that and make the user
experience better for at least those people who have a WF2 browser, and
on a very low time budget.
<http://dolphinling.net> coming soon…
More information about the whatwg