- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 14:36:49 +0000 (UTC)
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004, Jim Ley wrote: > On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 10:02:08 +0000 (UTC), Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote: > > On Tue, 13 Jul 2004, Jim Ley wrote: > > > That a datetime control degrades into something usable, I've explained > > > it lots of time in this thread. > > > > Oh, you're still only requesting that. Ok. I think we have explained lots > > of times in this thread why we think that's already available, and better > > than the few other proposed syntaxes that I've seen which would have more > > complete possibilities for fallback. > > Could you list these enhanced proposed syntaxes again? No, you are just as capable of reading the archives as I am. > > >> It really isn't. It's just a bunch of pretty simple regexps and some > > >> simple maths. > > > > > > 04/07/2004 > > > 4th July 04 > > > 7/4/04 > > > 2004-7-4 > > > 4/7/4 > > > 1.091574000e+12 > > > > > > Massaging all of those (well perhaps not the last) into the date > > > intended by the user, is not simple, it's a lot more complicated than, > > > just taking the date/month/year from the 3 input controls on most > > > international forms today. > > > > It's not trivial, sure. But it's still pretty simple. > > Point me to a library then... any language... See the "parseDateTime" function at the bottom of: http://whatwg.org/demos/date-01/test-source > > > No, it's not - that may be the common case for when you first enter a > > > form, but even those forms upon an invalid response in it will > > > repopulate the form with the invalid data. This makes the approach > > > unworkable for me, as after a validation failure I cannot leave the > > > user value in there. Quite apart from it failing in all the other > > > cases where authors wish to set up a value. > > > > I maintain that it _is_ the common case. In the 50 or so pages with forms > > that I looked at yesterday, only about 2 had an initial value. > > You appear to be confusing my point - common here, I'm obviously very > poor at getting them across. > > Upon submission of a form, that results in a validation error, or other > reason to return to the page (perhaps a "choose a new destination on a > flight map") develepors populate the form with the previous entry - this > is the initial value problem, it does not mean that on first entry pages > necessarily have a default value. If you have received an invalid value, you know it is a non-WF2 UA. You can thus write whatever markup you want to handle the non-WF2 UA. > > Yes, I have. Just check if "input.type" is equal to "datetime" (or > > whatever type you are checking for). > > I've already demonstrated UA's that do not do this the last time you > suggested it as the solution. Please try again... I just tested this again, and all the UAs I tested, did this fine: http://www.hixie.ch/tests/adhoc/dom/html/forms/005.html Since this is required behaviour by the specs, that's good enough for me. > > > Why bother, when we already have an HTML 4 compatible way of > > > achieving this (OBJECT) which is only being rejected not because it > > > doesn't degrade on IE, but because it does! That really seems a > > > ridiculous reason to me. > > > > The idea is to implement these features in IE. That's a requirement. > > I understood the requirement to be degradeable in downlevel browsers > including the ability to provide more enhanced fallback of the new > features, via both browser plugins and scripting in UA's such as > Internet explorer. > > What I did not understand it to mean, is that the implementation of > the features in IE (what does that mean by the way, which versions > platforms etc. Could you clarify the design goals, if they're not > what my first paragraph gives) were dependant on a particular > methodology. Windows IE6. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 17 August 2004 07:36:49 UTC