[whatwg] [Web Forms 2.0] Last minute suggestion - The <format> element.

Matthew Raymond mattraymond at earthlink.net
Thu Jan 27 09:33:33 PST 2005

Jim Ley wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 11:39:33 -0500, Matthew Raymond
> <mattraymond at earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>Good point, using OBJECT for this would be much better, as we're
>>>re-using an existing element with just the semantics we want...
>>   Let's not start with the object stuff again. Any control defined
>>with  <object> has absolutely no semantics beyond those of <object>.
> Which depends on the other bits, just like input - OBJECT is already a
> form control, just like input.

    Only because the embedded content can potentially a form control, 
and I'm not certain that every browser supports the form control aspect 
of <object>.

>>Also, it's nigh impossible to use your <object> approach
>>with an HTC implementation.
> No it's not, it's perfectly possible.

    I'll leave that to people more qualified (perhaps Dean would like to 
answer this), but that still leaves several other arguments. First of 
all, there's the fact that I've shown that there is duplication of 
information under the <object>-for-WF2-controls that might cause QA 
problems. There's also the question as to why we can't just do this instead:

| <dateinput id="date" value="2005-01-30">
|  <range min="2005-01-25" max="2006-01-25">
|  <submit name="month" format="%m">
|  <submit name="day" format="%d">
|  <submit name="year" format="%Y">
|  <!-- Fallback content -->
| </dateinput>

    Or, for WF2-only solutions:

| <dateinput id="date" value="2005-01-30">
|  <range min="2005-01-25" max="2006-01-25">
|  <submit name="date">
| </dateinput>

    This provides PERFECT fallback content, and lacks most of the 
disadvantages of <object> while having all its strengths. In fact, I've 
half talked myself into using this format just having typed it right now...

More information about the whatwg mailing list