W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-comments@w3.org > September 2014

Re: Proposal of extension to element in HTML

From: <tristanlbailey@sgsoftware.com.au>
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 15:49:06 +0930
To: public-html-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <98fe0339da83921d4819292e995f0768@sgsoftware.com.au>
> Oh, then I misunderstood I guess. I'm not sure I follow the logic then.
> If the exact number of required fields is n, doesn't this mean that n
> fields must be filled, without excluding the possibility of filling in
> other fields? This sounds like a minimum number of fields to me.

OK, I think I understand you, now. However, I don't feel that your idea 
of min / max values addresses the presence of the boolean 'required' 
attribute that input, select and textarea elements (descendant elements 
of the 'fieldset' element) may have.

For example, to take your idea into account, in the case that there are 
5 text fields, where none of them have a boolean 'required' attribute, 
with a 'minimum' *required* value of two (2) fields set, then at least 
two (2) fields would need to be filled in. That I understand.

The new concept of a 'maximum' *required* value that you have 
introduced, as I understand, means that the user would be *restricted* 
to x number of fields. So with a 'maximum' value set at 4, would that 
mean that the user cannot fill in all 5 input text elements? Would one 
always be left out, regardless?

What happens if we were now to assign the boolean 'required' attribute 
into three (3) of these input text elements? How should user agents 
treat these fields? Keep in mind that we have already stated a 'minimum' 
of two (2) fields that should be filled in, with the 'minimum' 

When I first though of my proposal, I did not consider limiting / 
restricting available fields. I'm not sure what the real-world scenarios 
for limiting fields by a maximum value would be.

Also, I found out just today that 'min' and 'max' attributes already 
exist, so we shouldn't simply call them 'min' and 'max' if they were to 
be implemented. Perhaps 'minreq' and 'maxreq' would be better names for 
these attributes.


As to another name for the new 'required' attribute, I could not think 
of a better name, other than 'prerequisities', which is a bit long for a 
tag; maybe it could be abbreviated to 'prereq'?

> There would be a problem with the <select> element, since it can
> logically correspond to a set of fields. Just as we often wish to set a
> minimum or maximum number of text fields filled in or checkboxes
> checked, we may wish to set a minimum or maximum number of options to 
> be
> selected in a <select multiple>. Well, I guess <select> could have min
> and max attributes of its own.

Not sure what you mean by problem with the 'select' element; while it is 
an element that represents multiple options to choose from, it is an 
element in its own right, and could be part of a combination of other 
elements of different types, that appear under a 'fieldset' element. In 
other words, while multiple items can be selected from a single 'select' 
element, the 'select' element itself can also have the required 
attribute, and therefore should be taken into consideration alongside 
other sibling elements.

> Yes, <fieldset> can be used rather freely, but its apparent intended 
> use
> is to group fields that are closely related, like a set of radio 
> buttons
> or a set of <input type=text> elements for a postal address. It has no
> functional impact (in HTML as currently defined and implemented).

Hmm, so the 'disabled' attribute isn't something with 'functional 


Thanks again,

  - Tristan
Received on Wednesday, 10 September 2014 06:19:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:26:30 UTC