[whatwg] Allow <form> as a child of <tbody>

[Simon Pieters]

Hi,

I'll push a bit further on this issue. :-)

From: Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch>
> > While that is true with the constraints of HTML4, we could allow forms 
>to be
> > direct children of <tbody> in HTML5.
> >
> > <table>
> >  <form action="/edit" method="post">
> >   <tr>
> >    <td>
> >     <input type="hidden" name="id" value="1"/>
> >     <input type="text" name="name" value="First Row"/>
> >
> > This also happens to be backwards compatible with legacy UA's.
>
>Check the DOM for that markup. "Backwards compatible" is not the words I
>would use...

FWIW, apparently I'm not the only one who thinks that having <form> as child 
of <tbody> is intuitive. In a thread at Sitepoint Forums an author asks why 
it's invalid.

   http://www.sitepoint.com/forums/showthread.php?t=433821

If this practise will be allowed then I'd suggest to adjust the parsing 
section so that it reflects IE's DOM instead of the other browsers' DOM 
(i.e., make TR a child of FORM instead of a sibling).

>(FWIW, I'm considering dropping form="" altogether, as part of a WF2
>simplification effort, in response to feedback from Mozilla and Apple
>about WF2 being too much too soon.)

If the main use-case for form="" is to allow forms for each TR then allowing 
the above practise would make form="" redudant for that use-case. Obviously 
form="" has other use-cases, but if implementors don't want it yet it can 
perhaps wait to WF3... I don't have strong opinions about form="", I only 
know that <form><tr> "works" in all browsers while form="" only works in 
HTML5 browsers.

Regards,
Simon Pieters

_________________________________________________________________
Eragon på  vita duken 15/12! http://www.msn.se/noje/eragon/