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

Simon Pieters zcorpan at hotmail.com
Mon Oct 30 16:11:07 PST 2006


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.


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.

Simon Pieters

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

More information about the whatwg mailing list