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

[Bug 12561] Add the @action in the <form> so that there is a way to submit to the same page

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 09:03:18 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1QjpA6-00031y-1C@jessica.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12561

--- Comment #22 from Luke Plant <L.Plant.98@cantab.net> 2011-07-21 09:03:11 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #20)

> Just use formaction="?" instead.

This will not work for POST forms where the current URL has a query component,
because it will strip the query component. (BTW, I have actually tested this,
and can confirm that with at least one browser, Chrome, specifying '?' as the
relative URL will cause the query component to be removed, for both form@action
and input@formaction).

> I don't see how it is fixing confusion or adding confusion. It's just putting a
> fence around something that is confusing.

It is adding confusion by adding a special rule. In the case of having no
<base> (the more common case by 20 to 1), there is nothing confusing about an
empty URL. But now I have to remember to do something other than the obvious
thing - instead of specifying an empty URL, I must omit the attribute.

> You don't need to satisfy HTML4 or HTML5 or XHTML1. You only need to worry
> about the latest HTML; what is implemented by browsers (or what they're
> converging onto).

That is a good suggestion for document authors, but in this case I was writing
as a tool author, and decisions about doctype are made by our users, not us. We
don't have the authority to tell people to switch from XHTML doctypes.

> > Since we *cannot* fix this in Django (in any feasible way), our only option is
> > to ignore validity, with the result that validity checking will increasingly
> > become irrelevant since pages will very often have errors. This, of course,
> > works in the direction of defeating the whole purpose of this change.
> 
> Why can't you fix it?

Because we have 1) users who expect our output to be valid XHTML (since it has
been historically), and may well have requirements of document validity and 2)
users who want to use our output in HTML5 documents, and may also want document
validity. We cannot please both (with the current HTML5 spec), since fixing our
output for HTML5 by omitting @action breaks it for XHTML.

Thanks,

Luke

-- 
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 Thursday, 21 July 2011 09:03:24 UTC

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