W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > April 2005

[whatwg] Web Forms 2.0 Feedback

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 23:15:14 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0504052307560.27724@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>
On Tue, 5 Apr 2005, Dean Edwards wrote:
> > 
> > Yeah, several people have said that. We're thinking about removing it. 
> > On the other hand, several people have said that it is a godsend and 
> > that they are so happy it is there because they are fed up of rolling 
> > their own. At the moment it's about equally matched, in fact.
> > 
> > The model is pretty simple and relatively easy to implement, so I'm 
> > leaning towards keeping it.
> 
> Ian, I thought we'd sorted this out. We had exactly the same discussion 
> a few weeks back and nobody came up with any objections to the current 
> model.

Someone just did - Csaba. :-)


> I quite like Olav's idea to separate the Repetition Model from 
> the existing WF2 spec. This would give us time to discuss it a bit more 
> without impacting the rest of WF2. Maybe the Repetition Model should be 
> separate anyway? Personally, if I was considering using it on a site, 
> I'd prefer to print off a separate spec to read. But that's just me. I 
> /do/ recognise that this is a bit of an editorial headache however... 
> ;-)

There are basically three reasons for which I'd rather not split that bit 
out. First, as you say, it would be a pain to do. Second, it wouldn't be 
very clean. While the spec _looks_ like it's neatly organised and cutting 
it out would just mean cutting out section 3, it really isn't that simple. 
The repetition model is deeply embedded in the DOM sections and the form 
submission and seeding sections. (And rightfully so -- the repetition 
model integrates with those sections so as to provide the features that 
can't be easily provided if people implement it by hand.)

The third reason is that I don't see why we need "more time" to discuss 
it. We've had the last two months to discuss it and there's been nothing 
really said. If it was really being discussed and some deadline was coming 
up, then I would agree -- but unless that actually happens, then I don't 
see how a delay would help.

Anyway, I've removed the "open issue" in the status section about whether 
the repetition model should be kept. As you pointed out, the views in 
favour of keeping it are stronger than the views suggesting it be removed.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 5 April 2005 16:15:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 13 April 2015 23:08:21 UTC