[whatwg] Web Forms 2.0 - repetition model control

Ian Hickson ian at hixie.ch
Fri Oct 14 14:19:19 PDT 2005

On Fri, 14 Oct 2005, ROBO Design wrote:
> I have read the Web Forms 2.0 specification and the only thing that came 
> to my mind is that the new <input type="add/remove/move-up/move-down"> 
> are not very well suited.
> Thing is, input type="text/date/number" and all the other types really 
> define new types for user input. Yet, type="add" is ... too general. I 
> don't think this can be changed (I'm too late), yet I belive that 
> type="template-add" would have been more clear.

You have a point. However, I think the benefit of the ease of authoring of 
just having to type type="remove", rather than type="template-remove" or 
type="remove-block" or similar, should not be underestimated.

> Also, when presenting extensions to the <input> element [1], more 
> specifically the new input types, there's no mention of 
> add/remove/move-up/move-down input types. It's perfectly understandable 
> why: these are not true input types. If these types would have been 
> prefixed with "template-", the section could have mentioned something 
> like "We also included few types for repetition model control, all being 
> prefixed with 'template-' (See <repetition model>). ".

I've added a note with such a link.

I agree with you that there would be benefit in having the names more 
specific, but I think people would quickly get tired of typing it out all 
the time. (This is the same reason that <navigation> was renamed <nav> in 
the WA1 draft.) What do you think?

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