[whatwg] [WF2] Objection to autocomplete Attribute

Ian Hickson ian at hixie.ch
Wed Mar 23 04:02:47 PST 2005

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005, Olav Junker Kjær wrote:
> This could easily be solved by keeping the name "autocomplete" but 
> redefine its sematics as indicating that the input data is sensitive. 
> (the recommended default UI in UA's that support autocompletion would 
> still be as described in the spec). Of course the name will be slightly 
> misleading now, but thats not a big deal. "checkbox" is also a name that 
> suggest an UI representation, but the semantics is still defined as UI 
> neutral.


On Mon, 21 Mar 2005, Matthew Raymond wrote:
> Actually, now that I think about it, why do we need to have a spec 
> saying that it's not depreciated or that it should be non-trivial to 
> deactivate if the banks are going to blackmail UAs to support it?

Because to be useful, specs have to be realistic.

> Why support blackmail through our specifications. If banks force them to 
> implement a specific attribute in a specific way, fine, but don't force 
> user agents to do it that way as a matter of spec compliance.

Ok. I changed it to a SHOULD.

Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

More information about the whatwg mailing list