[whatwg] validationMessage
Anne van Kesteren
annevk at opera.com
Fri Feb 12 00:20:21 PST 2010
On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 08:05:54 +0100, Peter Kasting <pkasting at google.com>
wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 11:01 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas at sicking.cc> wrote:
>> Would be great if you could provide a reason why you feel this way.
>
> Did the previous messages in the thread not say enough reasons? Ian's
> response was basically "then how would we solve use cases 1 and 2?" which
> was why I was clarifying that I did not have an alternative solution, I
> felt that they are cases we should not be trying to solve.
You wrote in that thread:
> This seems like an attempt to make life slightly easier on webpage
> authors by providing boilerplate UI if they don't want to write
> anything. But I see that as a small benefit with significant edge
> cases. Authors are already expected to supply the textual content inthe
> page, the text in alerts, etc., so providing the text in the"validation
> failed" UI doesn't seem that bad. The UA can still dothings like turn
> fields red or add warning sign icons or something if itlikes.
Isn't the benefit rather big? I can just use <input type=email> on my page
and the user agent will take care of ensuring it is correct (on the client
side) and provide the appropriate messages to the user in case the user
made a mistake. Anything beyond that will require scripting which seems
overkill for e.g. blog comments.
I'm not too convinced with #2 though so exposing the message is probably
not needed. (And if the user agent can somehow provide a non-textual user
interface for the above that should be allowed too.)
--
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
More information about the whatwg
mailing list