[whatwg] comments on Web Forms 2.0
josha at mac.com
Wed Oct 12 17:21:03 PDT 2005
I have read your Web Forms 2.0 draft, but I didn't have time to
comment on much past section 2.5. Not too much to say anyway. I
haven't ever submitted comments on a spec before, so I hope this kind
of thing is what you're looking for.
- You use spacing in "HTML 4" inconsistently. Sometimes there is
space between "HTML" and "4" and sometimes not. See the first two
paragraphs of the introduction.
- Section 1.1: "browsers prevalent in 2004" - could be more specific
given that the number of decently conforming HTML 4 and DOM
implementations can probably be counted on one hand (Gecko, KHTML,
IE, Opera). This could better set the bar in terms of what is
considered to be an acceptable implementation.
- Section 1.2: perhaps "strong market *demand*" instead of "need".
"need" is hard to justify, demand is not. And it sounds better.
- Section 1.8: digital signatures: can you include a list of patent
numbers you are concerned about? If you don't do that, you're
significantly adding to the amount of work somebody has to do to
consider the problem.
- Section 2.2: hidden: "An arbitrary string that is not normally
displayed to the user." Under what circumstances might a conforming
UA display hidden input to a user? The HTML 4 spec makes no mention
of such a circumstance.
- It is not clear to me why we need a month and week extension to the
input element. Seems like it only complicates implementation and
gives people who deal with dates more rows in the matrix of things
they need to be able to handle. You can easily express both with date
and datetime. Furthermore, figuring out a date's week # is simple.
Even more so for months. I'd just think we should think hard before
duplicating avenues for the same information.
More information about the whatwg