<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 12:23 PM, Michelangelo De Simone <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:micdesim@gmail.com">micdesim@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
What is the rationale about this choice? A simpler behavior with a predetermined list of return values (eg: i.validationMessage == VALUEMISSING) could be much more efficient for authors and implementors to deal with, IMHO.<br>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>I tend to agree.</div><div><br></div><div>>From <a href="https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=27959#c29">https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=27959#c29</a> , where this was implemented for WebKit:</div>
<div>"This patch sure does seem to be an eloquent argument for not having all these localized strings in the HTML5 form element design! I don't see a lot of value of returning these strings that might not even be in the same language as the</div>
<div>website. I wish we could get that changed." -- Darin Adler</div><div><br></div><div>My oversimplified view of this is:</div><div>* Providing a way for the webpage to specify validation constraints and understand when they have not been met -- good</div>
<div>* Directing the UA to step into this process and show the user messages about the validation failures, which don't take into account context the web page has -- bad</div><div><br></div><div>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 in the page, the text in alerts, etc., so providing the text in the "validation failed" UI doesn't seem that bad. The UA can still do things like turn fields red or add warning sign icons or something if it likes.</div>
<div><br></div><div>PK</div></div>