[whatwg] Web Forms 2.0 - repetition model control
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 , 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