[whatwg] RFC: <input type="username">

[Steve Dennis]

On 5/05/2010, at 9:09 PM, Christoph Päper wrote:

> Eitan Adler:
>> 
>> A type="username" is added to the input element. type="username" would MUST only be used for the name that is used to log in to the site. It MUST NOT be used for registration forms or anything else that requires a username. A form MAY have up to one (but not more) type="username" input field.
> 
> I agree with whomever mentioned that 
> 
>  <form role=login>
> 
> seems more appropriate. Anyhow, I wondered whether it makes sense to apply microformats to such forms, perhaps reusing ‘hcard’:
> 
>  <form class=vcard role=login method=post action="./">
>    <input type=text name=username class=nickname>
>    <input type=password name=password>
>    <input type=submit>
>  </form>
> 
> Nick and user name are probably not the same all that often and differ by site, so this probably doesn’t make sense at all. Still, form field semantics (‘name’/‘id’ and ‘class’ or ‘role’) may improve through some kind of standardization, although names shouldn’t be as clumsy as in RFC 3106 (ECML: Field Specifications for E-Commerce) when applied to HTML forms.
> 
>  <form action="http://ecom.example.com" method=post class=Ecom> 
>  <fieldset class=Payment-Card>
>    <legend>Please enter card information</legend>
>    <label class=Name>Your name on the card 
>      <input type=text name="Ecom_Payment_Card_Name" size=40>
>    </label>
>    <label class=Number>The card number 
>      <input type=text name="Ecom_Payment_Card_Number" size=19>
>    </label>
>    <label class=ExpDate>Expiration date (MM YY) 
>      <input type=month class=Month name="Ecom_Payment_Card_ExpDate_Month" size=2> 
>      <input type=year class=Year name="Ecom_Payment_Card_ExpDate_Year" size=4>
>    </label>
>    <input type=hidden class=Protocol name="Ecom_Payment_Card_Protocol">
>  </fieldset>
>  <input type=hidden class=SchemaVersion name="Ecom_SchemaVersion" value="http://www.ecml.org/version/1.1">
>  <input type=submit> <input type=reset>
>  </form>

I don't know if it's relevant, but if we're thinking backwards compatibility, keep in mind earlier versions of ASP.NET only allow one form per page, so wrapping a login in a form tag isn't really an option.  Someone tell me if I'm wrong on that though, I'm just a designer :)

--
Steve Dennis
www.subcide.com