[whatwg] Constraint validation for maxlength

[Mounir Lamouri]

On 07/24/2010 08:46 AM, Ola P. Kleiven wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 00:21:10 +0200, Aryeh Gregor
> <Simetrical+w3c at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 5:46 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas at sicking.cc> wrote:
>>> I think that depends largely on how many, and how big, sites are
>>> affected by this. Do you have a list of known sites with this issue?
>>
>> No, I was just raising the issue to see what people thought.  Maybe
>> someone from Opera could share a reason why they don't follow the spec
>> here, unless the spec was different when they implemented it or
>> something.
> 
> From what I can see this was changed in Opera four years ago after some
> debate [1]. The big problem was pre- and script-filled fields that
> exceeded maxlength. Users got confused when fields they hadn't touched
> threw an error. See also [2] and [3]
> 
> Sites that broke back then were: (I don't know know if any of them still
> are affected, many require login)
> 
> The YaBB forum software
> SuperOffice eJournal (a support system Opera used)
> http://kayak.com/ (was fixed after we pointed it out)
> http://www.costco.com/ (internal navigation)
> http://www.nowwhere.com.au (zooming maps)
> http://www.zap2it.com
> http://www.kwick.de/forum
> 
> 1) https://bugs.opera.com/browse/DSK-151609 (sorry, Opera access only)
> 2)
> http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2006-February/005695.html
> 
> 3)
> http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2006-January/005459.html

I suppose, like @required, as long as it doesn't break too many
websites, we can count on evangelism teams and user feedbacks to fix
there websites.
Removing the current behavior because some (minors?) websites are
misusing it would be sad.

--
Mounir