[whatwg] [wf2] Late comments and questions on Web Forms 2.0
hsivonen at iki.fi
Wed Mar 8 11:36:23 PST 2006
These are based on the 2006-01-10 version.
The language is en-GB-hixie not en-GB-x-Hixie (as defined in Hixie
English 1.0-pre38 :-).
1.9. (and elsewhere)
It appears that "conformant" is not generally accepted in
dictionaries. ("Conforming" is.)
1.9. & 2.5.
The spec does not have a spec-wide clarification on what is meant by
a character. Also, maxlength is defined in terms of code points and
not DOMString (UTF-16) code units. Is this intentional?
1.10. & 2.3.
Cursory testing indicates that IE6 does not do Unicode case folding
when eg. checking the value of the type attribute on the input
element. This suggests an interop problem. As far as document
conformance goes, can the values that browsers are required to
compare case-insensitively be required to be lower case or at least
confined to the Basic Latin block (i.e. no Turkish i)? Any difference
between HTML and XHTML?
In my opinion (considering RFC 2616), servers should not require a
Referer header in a "trusted host" check but should only reject
requests with a Referer header that has an undesirable value.
"User agents may establish a button in each form as being the form's
default button. (This should be the first submit button in the form,
but UAs may pick another button if another would be more appropriate
for the platform.)"
That is problematic, because then the author cannot know which button
will be treated as the default button.
How is stepping over leap seconds expected to handled? Suppose the
value of a datetime field is 2006-01-01T00:00:00Z and the step has
been set to one day (86400). The user takes a step down. Is the
correct value then 2005-12-31T00:00:01Z or 2005-12-31T00:00:00Z? I
have no idea how this issue is usually dealt with in software. How
can libraries released at different times have the same notion of the
discretionary decisions of some bureau? To me it seems that leap
seconds are a can of worms and more trouble than they are worth, but
sadly they seem to be an official part of UTC.
Does ISO 8601 define how its flavor of the Gregorian calendar rolls
backwards all the way to, say, 1900 or 1 AD?
If the specified value of the value attribute does not conform to the
datatype and is not "", is it proper to consider the document non-
conforming? (I'd say this would be useful for quality assurance of
the initial state of forms but would be violated when round-tripping
data to a non-WF2 UA.)
Is it conforming to have leading zeros in a year that fills four
digit slots? E.g. 00002006-03-08T00:00:00Z
"A field with a max less than its min can never fulfill both
conditions when it has a value (since that value will always either
underflow or overflow the allowed range) and thus must block its
forms from being submitted. This does not make the document non-
Why doesn't it make the document non-conforming?
"Authors should include a description of the pattern in the title
How does that requirement on authors relate to checking document
conformance? It seems to be of the same ilk as requiring alt.
The prose does not say that 'required' is a boolean attribute.
The prose says "space-separated". Since the usual SGML and XML
convention is to use tokens separated by one or more white-space
characters and preceded and trailed by zero or more white-space
characters, I'd like to see more precise prose that makes it clear
whether the convention is followed or if "separated by a single U
+0020 character with no space before or after" is meant.
"In other words, form controls and fieldsets must be associated with
the forms given in their form attribute, or, if they don't have one,
must be associated with the nearest ancestor form element or the
forms given in the form attribute of the nearest fieldset element
with a form attribute, whichever is the nearest. If none of those
apply, the element is not associated with any form."
That paragraph presumable makes statements about UA behavior but the
formulation look like statements about document conformance.
"If a form is specified multiple times in the form attribute, all
occurrences but the first must be ignored. (An element can only be
associated with a form once.)"
Are multiple occurrences non-conforming from the document conformance
point of view?
"This attribute is defined to be exactly equivalent to the inputmode
attribute defined in the XForms 1.0 specification (sections E1
through E3.2) [XForms]."
"inputmode" linked to WF 2.0 inputmode. Should be linked to inputmode
in the XForms spec.
2.12. & elsewhere
Are dangling id references non-conforming? (I hope they are.)
"(If the value of defaultValue is queried before the entire element's
contents have been parsed, or if the element was created dynamically
(as opposed to being inserted into the DOM by the UA's parser), then
defaultValue must return the empty string.)"
Does textContent guarantee such behavior in mid-parse?
"Authors should always specify a cols attribute when the wrap
attribute is set to hard."
Should violating a 'should' like that be considered a conformance
error in terms of document conformance?
"Authors may include an accept attribute on textarea elements to
indicate the type of content expected. User agents may use this
attribute to provide more appropriate editors, syntax highlighting,
spelling checkers, etc. The value of the attribute must be a single
text-based MIME type (for example, text/plain, message/news, image/svg
Are MIME type parameters allowed? If image/svg+xml is on the example
list, shouldn't application/xml be as well to emphasize that it is
not about text/*?
'range := "*/*" | type "/*" | subtype "/" type'
Looks like it should read
range := "*/*" | type "/*" | type "/" subtype
"These names, and their exact semantics, differ from those of the
equivalent attribute in XForms 1.0 (the replace attribute on the
"replace" links to WF 2.0. Should link to XForms.
3.2.2. & elsewhere
It would be nice to state that "decimal digits" are those in the
Basic Latin block and nothing else.
Are orphan repetition blocks conforming?
"When the value attribute is absent, the buttons should be given
locale-dependent default labels, in the same way as submit and reset
Matching the page locale (if strings available) or always from
browser UI locale?
Are repeat-max and repeat-min non-conforming without repeat? Would
Is is non-conforming to mark the root element as a repetition template?
Is it non-conforming for the document initial state not to comply
with repeat-max and repeat-min?
hsivonen at iki.fi
More information about the whatwg