[whatwg] Re: Comments on "Web Forms 2.0"
ian at hixie.ch
Wed Jul 6 05:41:44 PDT 2005
On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Bjoern Hoehrmann 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.
Just went through and checked for compliance; fixed the minor issues I
found. No major issues found, I think I already did this once.
> >> 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...
Yes, it would not be useful for everyone.
> 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.
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
More information about the whatwg