[whatwg] [WF2] Objection to autocomplete Attribute
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
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