[whatwg] [WF2] Comments on sections 2.3 -- 2.5
ian at hixie.ch
Mon Jul 11 08:45:55 PDT 2005
As always, the updated spec is on the site at the usual URI.
On Sun, 10 Jul 2005, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> The submission behavior of various browsers I've tested is the
> following: [...]
> The point is, a number of sites that have forms that have more than one
> text input do validation in the submit button's onclick handler instead
> of doing it in onsubmit handlers... since said handler is always fired
> in NS4/IE/Mozilla, they get away with it.
Okie dokie. Updated the spec to fire a click event.
> > What is it withdrawn in favour of? Do you know?
> No idea. I just followed the link you had to the ISO website and
> noticed the status...
Ok, thanks for the heads-up.
> > > Description of 1970-W01 should probably talk about 1970-01-04, not
> > > 1970-01-01.
> > The key point is that it contains 1970-01-01. If it had been 1969-W53
> > that contained it, then that would have been the zero point instead.
> > It's just lucky that the 1970-W01 week contains both 01-01 and 01-04.
> Ah, I see. So the key is that 1970-W01 contains 1970-01-01, not that
> 1970-W01 is the first week of 1970. Might be good to make the 1969-W53
> example in the spec to clarify that.
Well, it's only a design decision for the spec, I don't think it's that
important. Do you? I clarified the definition of weeks yesterday; this is
a separate part of the spec.
> > > If the UA rounds to the nearest allowed value, does that mean
> > > "allowed by step and within the min/max constraints"? In other
> > > words, given <input type="number" min="0" max="99" step="15">, what
> > > should 98 be rounded to? 105, 90, or something else?
> > Clarified.
> I think this would be clearer if the specification explicitly stated
> that said rounding may cause the value to be out of range, thus
> triggering a rangeOverflow or rangeUnderflow validation error.
Added a parenthetical may.
> > > I'm not sure what to make of the recommendation for doing
> > > comparisons in string form when dealing with number types or with
> > > step. It sounds pretty complicated to get right for those cases...
> > It's not a requirement, merely a suggestion (albeit a "recommended"
> > one).
> I guess my point is that for number types or step this would be a very
> difficult to follow suggestion and that attempts to follow it are likely
> to be pretty buggy...
I guess we could remove the suggestion. Would you prefer that?
> > > I'm not sure what the clause "the interface concept of 'readonly'
> > > values does not apply to button-like interfaces." means.
> > It means that having a read-only button makes no sense. I don't
> > understand what you don't understand. :-)
> It wasn't clear whether "interface" was a "user interface" or a
> "programming interface" (like a DOM interface, say). The latter
> interpretation makes it sound like the readonly DOM attribute should
> disappear if the type of the control is changed, which I think is not
> the intent here.
Changed to "user interfaces".
> > Good question. I've commented it out for now. Does "foo.readonly"
> > really just reflect the content attribute in implementations or does
> > it only return true for controls that can be disabled?
> It just reflects the content attribute in Mozilla, and the language the
> DOM spec uses implies that that's what should be happening (the "See the
> XXX attribute definition" phrasing is what the DOM working group uses
> for "just reflect the attribute value into the DOM").
Ok, just left it out then.
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
More information about the whatwg