[whatwg] Week Strings
ian at hixie.ch
Mon Jul 13 22:13:59 PDT 2009
On Fri, 19 Jun 2009, Smylers wrote:
> For <input type=week> elements the spec requires:
> The value attribute, if specified, must have a value that is a valid
> week string.
> -- http://www.whatwg.org/html5#week-state
> But the spec's HTML source contains this comment immediately afterwards:
> <!-- ok to set out-of-range value, we never know when we might have to
> represent bogus input -->
> Does that comment mean that the above requirement will be changed to
> something along the lines of "must have a value that is a syntactically
> valid week string but may represent a week that doesn't actually exist"?
No, it just means that there's no requirement that the value="" be within
the range given by min="" and max="". It's a reminder to myself in case I
notice there's no such requirement one day and go and add one thinking it
was a mistake.
> That is, the author can seed a browser's week-picker control to a value
> which the browser must not submit back to the server?
So long as it is a valid week string, yes.
> In general determining that something is a valid week string requires
> knowing which day of the week the year in question begins on. For
> example "2009-W53" is a valid week string (because 2009 began on a
> Thursday) but "2010-W53" isn't (because 2010 will begin on a Friday).
> Browsers will need to do this to know whether they can submit a week
> The spec doesn't appear to provide an algorithm for determining which
> day of the week a year begins on (however I am not a browser developer;
> possibly this is sufficiently straightforward that those who are don't
> need it spelling out).
As far as I can tell, it is well-defined in the spec.
> Currently Validator.nu accepts this:
> <input type=week value=2010-W53>
> but not this:
> <input type=week value=2010-W54>
> If out-of-range week values are to be permitted in <input> elements then
> a validator should permit both of them. Conversely if they aren't
> permitted then it should accept neither of them (and therefore have to
> implement a 'which day is January 1st' algorithm, which I'm guessing it
> currently doesn't).
Please report such bugs straight to Henri. :-)
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
More information about the whatwg