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

[whatwg] WHAT calls for final comments on Web Forms 2.0 proposal

From: Sander <whatwg@juima.org>
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 00:33:29 +1100
Message-ID: <41F104A9.2090707@juima.org>
Some (mostly) nitpicky comments on the last call for comments draft (I 
checked that all issues are still present in the current draft).

section 2.4:
    "if (event.target.time1.value &gt;= event.target.time2.value) {"
--> if (event.target.time1.value <= event.target.time2.value) {

section 2.4.2:
    "The following control would only allow selection of any Sunday in 
any year from 1900:"
--> The following control would only allow selection of any Sunday in 
any year from 1900 onward:

section 2.15:
    "There is currently no way to specify an unlimited number of files 
may be uploaded"
--> There is currently no way to specify that an unlimited number of 
files may be uploaded

section 3.1.1:
    "The concept of hierarchy is expected to be represented in the 
names, as it is manually-created repeating forms"
--> The concept of hierarchy is expected to be represented in the names, 
as it is in manually-created repeating forms

section 3.1.2:
    "In HTML4-compliant UAs that do not implement this specification, 
the template acts as an initial blank row, and the "add" and "remove", 
buttons cause the form to be submitted"
Maybe note that this is only true for button type="add", not for input 
type="add"?

section 3.2:
    "In order to implement such a form declaratively"
It's been several paragraphs since a form of any kind has been 
described, and in fact, forms aren't the only use for this. This looks 
like an overenthusiastic copy/paste somewhere in the dim past.
--> In order to implement the repetition model declaratively

section 6.1:
    "Note 1:"
As there is no second note, perhaps this should just be "Note:"?
And actually, when I read // see note 1 below, I found myself scanning 
down for the kind of green text that denotes all other notes. Is there a 
reason this one isn't marked up as such?

Sander
Received on Friday, 21 January 2005 05:33:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 13 April 2015 23:08:20 UTC