[whatwg] Publishing another Web Forms 2 Call For Comments soon
ian at hixie.ch
Fri Jan 21 03:38:02 PST 2005
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005, [ISO-8859-1] Olav Junker Kjær wrote:
> The real problem is that there is no way to declare that all form
> controls in a single table row is part of the same dataset and should be
> submitted (and updated) as a unit, since HTML does not allow TR elements
> to be contained directly by a FORM. This is a serious problem, since
> tabular data which you want to edit "row by row" is exactly the type of
> data TABLE was intended for.
True. Authors will effectively be forced to have a <form id="rowNNN/> in
the first column of each row, and then have form="rowNNN" on each form
control. Not perfect, but we can't really change the <table> content model
(table parsing is already a house of cards, making it worse is a legacy
> But maybe its just because I understand the semantics of the form
> element incorrectly? I think of a form as as a grouping of related input
> fields which is edited by the user as a whole. By this understanding, it
> makes sense to have the form defined by containment. OTOH, if the form
> element is thought of more like the data model in XForms, then it makes
> sense to define the FORM separately from the input widgets, and allow
> widgets to bind to several data models. I dont think this fits too well
> with how forms usually are thought of in HTML, though.
The beauty (?) of the Web Forms 2 definition is that you can use either
model, as you see fit.
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
More information about the whatwg