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

[whatwg] Re: several messages

From: James Graham <jg307@cam.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 17:44:19 +0000
Message-ID: <420262F3.7000008@cam.ac.uk>
Matthew Raymond wrote:

> Ian Hickson wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 31 Jan 2005, James Graham wrote:
>>
>>>> It has problems, as mentioned elsewhere in the thread:
>>>>
>>>> * It is easy for authors to not include any fallback, which makes 
>>>> it worse than the <input> equivalent.
>>>
>>>
>>> In general, it is easy to make WF2 pages incompatible with older 
>>> browsers.
>>
>>
>> Granted, but at least it's not the default.
>
>
>    When using the inheritance feature of <idate>, incompatibility 
> isn't the default either, and the only situation in which you can't 
> use inheritance is when the first child control doesn't submit a 
> complete date. You're arguing a "Rogue Webmaster" scenario.

To be clear, my adaptation of this model did not include any such 
inheritance (for implementation simplicity). Having said that I don't 
think that requiring authors to explicitly provide fallback content is 
such a bad thing (at least, not worse than the limited fallback options 
offered by input). But more on that later.

-- 
"But if science you say still sounds too deep,
Just do what Beaker does, just shrug and 'Meep!'"

-- Dr. Bunsen Honeydew & Beaker of Muppet Labs
Received on Thursday, 3 February 2005 09:44:19 UTC

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