- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2009 06:32:28 +0000 (UTC)
- To: "Hallvord R. M. Steen" <hallvord@opera.com>
- Cc: Laurens Holst <lholst@students.cs.uu.nl>, public-html list <public-html@w3.org>
On Tue, 2 Dec 2008, Hallvord R. M. Steen wrote: > On Tue, 02 Dec 2008 11:25:50 +0100, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote: > > > > > > Obviously submitting forms randomly to wrong URLs makes any site > > > where users want to get things done *completely* useless. > > > > > > Bottom line: implementing "action" has been really painful > > > compatibility-wise. Any UA that wants to implement "action" as it is > > > specified now is going to need hackish workarounds against compat > > > problems. > > Would it be too weird to disallow relative URLs? If we say "attribute > values that are not fully qualified URLs must be considered custom data > and should not be considered during the submission process" or something > to that effect? I think most authors would rather give relative URLs here, so this seems like a bad idea. > In my personal opinion, I don't see why re-using attribute names is > considered so important if we can find an alternative that feels > memorable and usable. How does this look? > > <input type="submit" formaction="http://www.example.com/"> That seems reasonable. I've changed "action", "method", "target", "enctype" and "novalidate" attributes on <input> and <button> to start with "form" instead: "formaction", "formmethod", "formtarget", "formenctype" and "formnovalidate". -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Saturday, 21 March 2009 06:33:10 UTC