[whatwg] Re: Comments on "Web Forms 2.0"
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
>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
>> The draft is unclear about whether e.g. "application/xml" matches
>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