W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > July 2011

[Bug 13173] WF2: <input type="url"> should accept URLs with protocol omitted

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2011 20:51:42 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1Qg0yc-0003Yh-PB@jessica.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13173

--- Comment #15 from Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> 2011-07-10 20:51:42 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> (In reply to comment #11)
> > One reason that comes to mind is showing accurate diagnostics to the user.
> 
> More specifically?

If you do not know that the user typed, you can't tell him/her what was wrong.

(Yes, that's a general problem with client-side validation when what the user
types is not what's being sent to the server)

> (In reply to comment #12)
> > Quoting myself: "To have full control of input data". In development, full
> > control is always preferable over partial control when something is unknown.
> > Full control provides more flexibility regardless of a specific case.
> 
> <input type=text> gives full control.  Why do you want to use <input type=url>,
> if you want it to be able to contain things that aren't URLs?  Something
> without a protocol is not a URL, and will not work in practically any scenario
> where a URL is needed -- e.g., <a href> or other types of links embedded in
> content.  The only place where it will usually behave like a URL is if you type
> it into a navigation bar.

Not true. <a href> takes a references, not a what the HTML spec calls a "URL".
So, yes, it will absolutely work with something like "foo.html", and thus this
input type doesn't help at all for inserting hrefs.

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Sunday, 10 July 2011 20:51:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 16:31:13 UTC