[whatwg] The form attribute (Association of controls and forms)
ian at hixie.ch
Tue Aug 3 16:38:18 PDT 2010
On Fri, 14 May 2010, Mounir Lamouri wrote:
> "4.10.18 Association of controls and forms" explains the link between
> forms and form-associated elements (and the form attribute). However,
> I've the feeling the specifications go far over what should be done and
> force the implementor how to do it. What I mean is, this could be
> summarized like this: "If the form attribute is specified, the form
> owner of the element is the first form in the Document with the id
> corresponding of the form attribute value, if any. If the form attribute
> content is not a form element id, the element has no form owner. If the
> form attribute isn't specificed, the element form owner is the nearest
> ancestor form."
> However, the specification say (not only): "When a form-associated
> element's ancestor chain changes, e.g. because it or one of its
> ancestors was inserted or removed from a Document, then the user agent
> must reset the form owner of that element.
> When a form-associated element's form attribute is added, removed, or
> has its value changed, then the user agent must reset the form owner of
> that element.
> When a form-associated element has a form attribute and the ID of any of
> the elements in the Document changes, then the user agent must reset the
> form owner of that form-associated element.
> When a form-associated element has a form attribute and an element with
> an ID is inserted into or removed from the Document, then the user agent
> must reset the form owner of that form-associated element."
> These sentences explain more than "what should be the form owner" but
> explain how to implement it. It seems useless and maybe not needed
> sometimes (I'm wondering if checking for the ID wouldn't be better than
> observing all the element's ID change and insertion/removal).
> In my opinion, the form attribute behaves more or less like the for
> attribute for the label element so I'm wondering why the specification
> is so different. Is there a reason I'm missing ?
This is unfortunately needed for historical reasons. It handles weird
...where the <input> or the <form> are later moved in the DOM.
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
More information about the whatwg