W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > November 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: Sun, 20 Nov 2011 23:58:47 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1RSHHb-0001Bs-6m@jessica.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12561

--- Comment #30 from Luke Plant <L.Plant.98@cantab.net> 2011-11-20 23:58:46 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #28)
> See comment #26. This bug is waiting for a reply from brunoais  and/or Luke
> Plant.

I also don't know what kind of comment is expected.

Ayreh Gregor's comment #26 is well taken, but it only addresses one argument of
many, as already stated.

The following arguments still stand, as far as I can see:

1) The combination of specifying @action=something but wanting an individual
button to target the same URL, using @formaction="", cannot be achieved, which
is a bizarre restriction. The suggestion of using formaction="?" does not work
for reasons already described.

2) Many web authors and tools would be affected by this change if they wanted
to make pages HTML5 compliant (my crawler results showed approx 4% of all pages
using @action=""), and far fewer (approx 0.2% use @action=" " or @action=""
with base element present) are potentially helped by this change.

3) The current spec is going out of its way to ban a value for a URL that is
explicitly allowed by the relevant RFCs, thereby introducing its own standard
and increasing confusion.

4) An alternative solution has been proposed - that HTML5 validators issue a
warning for the problematic case of a specified 'base' element and @action=""
or @action=" ". The solution appears to address the problem that exists for the
'0.2%' without any of the disadvantages that banning an empty @action attribute
would cause the '4%'.

Thanks.

-- 
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, 20 November 2011 23:58:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 20 November 2011 23:58:53 GMT