W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > June 2006

[whatwg] <input type="text" accept="">

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 00:42:30 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0606090038460.10282@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>
On Wed, 31 May 2006, L. David Baron wrote:
> > 
> > I don't see why the same attribute _shouldn't_ be used to determine 
> > the type of data to allow, and whether to do spell checking or not. 
> > After all, whether to spell-check is directly related to what kind of 
> > data it is.
> 
> This sounds a lot like <object>, which allowed for tons of features but 
> didn't specify them precisely.  Are you planning to specify exactly what 
> the semantics of every MIME type are for all of these features?

No, because I don't know what those are, and want to allow for browser 
vendors to increase their feature set without having to have the spec 
updated each time.

It doesn't seem like this is an area that requires interoperability (who 
cares if one browser auto-indents and another colours and spell-checks, 
other than the user of each browser?).


> And any others people might want?  And are there really MIME types that 
> accurately represent the semantics of all the combinations of even just 
> the 4 features you list above that authors will want?  If every 
> combination needs a name, what if people want to toggle six different 
> things?

This sounds hypothetical.

Given that requiring a new flag per feature is not an option (as it 
would require a central authority to add these features, slowing the 
introduction of new features and discouraging experimentation), what 
solution would _you_ propose?

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 8 June 2006 17:42:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 13 April 2015 23:08:27 UTC