W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-device-apis@w3.org > December 2009

RE: [contacts] Propsed addition of <input file> extensions to Contacts API

From: <richard.tibbett@orange-ftgroup.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 16:15:11 +0100
Message-ID: <355A518BC0575547B2A3D6773AAF8EEF6CA8D5@ftrdmel1>
To: <robin@robineko.com>, <dom@w3.org>
Cc: <public-device-apis@w3.org>
On 1st Dec 2009, at 14:03, Robin Berjon wrote:
> 
> On Dec 1, 2009, at 13:40 , Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote:
> > Le mardi 01 décembre 2009 à 14:30 +0100, Robin Berjon a écrit :
> >> With <input type=contact> the user gets a text field. Neither of 
> >> those is a really nice experience.
> > 
> > But in both of the markup options, the <input type='foo'> 
> field could 
> > be conditionally added by the script based on detecting support for 
> > the API.
> 
> Yes, I'm not saying that it's impossible, just that it's not 
> necessarily ideal - in other words, we should look at the 
> ramifications.
> 
> Another option, which may just be crazy:
> 
> <form enctype='something-magic-about-dap-contacts' onsubmit='foo()'>
>   <input type='text' name='given-name'/>
>   <input type='text' name='family-name'/>
>   <!-- other stuff -->
> </form>
> 
> On implementations that support this entry point, you'd get a 
> way of selecting contacts, triggered from the magic enctype. 
> On older implementations, you fall back to the form.
> 
> I'm not saying it's a great way to go about it, just that 
> there may be other alternative markup-based entry points (and 
> that in some cases there won't be a good markup option).
> 

So is it important to include a markup annex (whatever it actually looks like) in our specs before FPWD or should we just include a note in the draft that we are also looking in to additional options (as Robin suggested)? i.e. is it on the critical path RE: browser integration?

Thanks,

Richard
Received on Tuesday, 1 December 2009 15:15:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:14:02 GMT