[whatwg] <input type=number> without keyboard editing
ian at hixie.ch
Thu Jan 6 15:22:44 PST 2011
On Mon, 1 Nov 2010, TAMURA, Kent wrote:
> A team in Google tried to use <input type=number> for a product, and
> they decided not to use it. What they needed was a control to select an
> integer from a specific integer range such as 1 - 16. The number type
> control in Opera and WebKit allow a user to input out-of-range value
> even if the control has min=1 and max=16 attributes. It's not a good UI
> and the reason why they doesn't use type=number.
> They need a number control which
> - doesn't allow any keyboard / cut&paste operations and
> So, a text field part is read-only, but the spin-buttons work.
> - always has a valid value.
> "required" by default, and sanitization algorithm may be different.
> I'm not sure how to solve this issue. Introducing new content attribute
> or another number type?
That's a very odd set of requirements. Can you tell us more about the use
case? (Are there any controls in native OSes that operate that way?)
On Mon, 1 Nov 2010, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> Do you really want to disallow keyboard editing, or do you just want to
> disallow entering an out-of-range number? The latter should be prevented
> by a proper implementation of <input type=number>. If that is not the
> case in webkit or opera then I suggest you file bugs on those
Browsers are allowed to let authors enter out-of-range numbers; indeed one
can imagine situations where the default value might be out of range (e.g.
a form saying "your previous choice is no longer valid, select a new
value" when some business logic constraints change). However, the UA is
indeed required to make sure the value is always numeric (or the empty
> If you really want to disallow editing then maybe what you want is
> <input type=range>. If not then I'm wondering how common that type of
> input widget you are requesting is. It might not be common enough that
> to build such a widget, ideally in combination with <input type=number>.
Indeed, without knowing more of the use case it's hard to say one way or
On Tue, 2 Nov 2010, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
> If the user enters a value of 100 in <input type=number max=50>, then
> it seems perverse to tell them "The maximum allowed value is 50" so
> they have to go back and fix it. It makes more sense to just
> automatically clamp it to 50.
Either behaviour is allowed. That's mostly a quality-of-implementation
> The spec is trying to say as little as possible about UI here, so that
> browsers can experiment. A browser where "Suffering from an
> underflow"/"overflow"/"step mismatch" never occurred would be
> conforming. So I don't think we need implementations to concur at this
> point -- they should be trying stuff out and seeing what works in
> practice. If they converge on particular conventions like this, then
> the conventions can be added to the spec at that point.
On Sun, 7 Nov 2010, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 8:55 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky at mit.edu> wrote:
> > Not firing the input event would likely break scripts too...
I don't see how it could break scripts at this stage, since it's still
very early days.
> The input event is not guaranteed to be fired on every keystroke anyway
The 'input' event only fires when the underlying /value/ changes, per
spec, so if the UA isn't updating the underlying /value/ for out-of-range
inputs, then the event doesn't fire.
On Sun, 7 Nov 2010, ddailey wrote:
> [...] The problem is vaguely related to a question of mathematics: while
> an ordinary base n writing system allows the expression of any number,
> n, using log (n) digits, some systems that are equally efficient have
> the added benefit (?) that individual numbers may be expressed in more
> than one way. Ordinary bases have exactly one expression per number and
> all numbers are expressible. Some systems might easily express certain
> numbers using log (log (n)) digits, but might not be able to express all
> numbers. (for example, the expression "2^(2^n)" expresses the n digit
> number (base 2) that it represents , using only log (log (n)) digits ).
> Is there a system of expression more efficient that ordinary base n for
> writing all numbers? Suppose there is a writing system S that encodes
> all numbers, n, expressible in S, using at most log(log(n)) digits. If
> such a system is not possible then there must be a smallest number Q
> that is not expressible within that system. Let us express that number
> using the symbol "Q" which takes one digit.
> If we had a control which allowed the entry of any large integer more
> quickly than through a numeric keypad, then would this not be a good
> widget? Likewise, the question of optimizing the "color picker"
> interface so that a human can choose "precisely" (modulo psy) a
> predetermined color (in RGB, HSV, or CIELAB space) in the least amount
> of time, has not, I would claim, yet been optimized. I think the optimal
> solution would involve throttles in an intrinsically toroidal space.
This is the kind of experimentation I hope we will see in browsers with
things like type=number.
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
More information about the whatwg