[whatwg] Re: Comments on "Web Forms 2.0"

Bjoern Hoehrmann derhoermi at gmx.net
Wed Jul 6 00:37:27 PDT 2005

* Ian Hickson wrote:
>> Section 2.16 notes
>>   The form element's action attribute is no longer a required attribute.
>>   Authors may omit it. When the attribute is absent, UAs must act as if
>>   the action attribute was the empty string, which is a relative URI
>>   pointing at the current document (or the specified base URI, if any). 

>The intent is for it to go to http://example.org/y/.

I'd suggest to include an example to this effect.

>I don't really know what to change to satisfy your comment here. The value 
>format for type="url" is defined (the IRI token); processing is defined in 
>terms of whether values match the format.

You could add a note that any string that matches the IRI token is valid
even if the string fails to satisfy other applicable requirements such
as scheme-specific syntax constraints, e.g., per RFC 2616, http://x:y@
example.org/ is not allowed but would be valid for the purposes of the
specification. If that's desired.

>> The document does not conform to http://www.w3.org/TR/charmod/ (e.g., 
>> content is not required to conform to charmod in order to conform to the 
>> specification).
>Fixed. Well, that is fixed. I don't know if there are any other problems.

http://www.w3.org/TR/charmod/#sec-Checklist has a list of requirements,
it'd be a good idea to review the draft against it if you haven't done
so already.

>> The draft is unclear about whether e.g. "application/xml" matches 
>> "image/svg+xml".
>Yes. I'm not sure we want to define this at this time, at least not in 
>this spec. What do you think?

I think media ranges are quite useless for e.g. http://validator.w3.org
since it basically supports any XML document and text/html documents...

It seems the draft considers accept="*/*" invalid yet implementations
must assume this value if the value is invalid. It also does not define
whether parameters like ;charset=... are allowed. It would be good to
have a clear production rule here.

>No, the intention is that extensions must not cause UAs to do things which 
>directly contradict what the spec says. Like, it would be ok to include a 
>new DOM attribute that returned the time it took the user to select the 
>current value (say), but not ok to define a new control that would appear 
>in the .elements array.

I'd suggest to include such examples in the document.
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern at hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ 

More information about the whatwg mailing list