[whatwg] Re: several messages
jim.ley at gmail.com
Mon Jan 31 09:45:21 PST 2005
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 17:27:30 +0000 (UTC), Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote:
> * It is easy for authors to not include any fallback, which makes it
> worse than the <input> equivalent.
Considering the current fallback of date requires bucketfuls of
script, I don't see that as a particularly relevant problem.
> * The fallback and non-fallback controls have different names.
This could equally be considered an advantage - seen as the WF2 has a
controlled submission format, it now gives the fallback behaviour
> 2. <select> controls, which do not need to be replaced at all, and
So replacing the vast majority of date entry widgets on the web today
is not a use case of the input type="date" it's specifically for the
much rarer case of input type=date.
Can I say that failing to address the use case currently implemented
with select boxes would be a terrible failing of WF2, it's a much
commoner use case than the single text entry box.
> ...not to mention the extra complexity and the implementation difficulty
> compared to just using a new "type".
How do you know how much harder it is to implement? This is a
valuable feature, leave it in, during the implementation phase we can
find out how difficult it is to implement. It's very disappointing to
have features (which I believe are simple to implement, certainly on
any codebases I'm likely to implement this on) denied simply because
the editor of the spec, and no-one else, believes it to be hard.
More information about the whatwg