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

[whatwg] Re: several messages

From: Jim Ley <jim.ley@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 17:45:21 +0000
Message-ID: <851c8d31050131094531d203e2@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 17:27:30 +0000 (UTC), Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote:
> * It is easy for authors to not include any fallback, which makes it
>   worse than the <input> equivalent.

Considering the current fallback of date requires bucketfuls of
script, I don't see that as a particularly relevant problem.

> * The fallback and non-fallback controls have different names.

This could equally be considered an advantage - seen as the WF2 has a
controlled submission format, it now gives the fallback behaviour
consistent results.

>     2. <select> controls, which do not need to be replaced at all, and

So replacing the vast majority of date entry widgets on the web today
is not a use case of the input type="date" it's specifically for the
much rarer case of input type=date.

Can I say that failing to address the use case currently implemented
with select boxes would be a terrible failing of WF2, it's a much
commoner use case than the single text entry box.

> ...not to mention the extra complexity and the implementation difficulty
> compared to just using a new "type".

How do you know how much harder it is to implement?  This is a
valuable feature, leave it in, during the implementation phase we can
find out how difficult it is to implement.  It's very disappointing to
have features (which I believe are simple to implement, certainly on
any codebases I'm likely to implement this on) denied simply because
the editor of the spec, and no-one else, believes it to be hard.

Jim.
Received on Monday, 31 January 2005 09:45:21 UTC

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