W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > August 2010

[whatwg] Please consider adding a couple more datetime <input> types - type="year" and type="month-day"

From: Ben Schwarz <ben.schwarz@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 12:20:39 +1000
Message-ID: <AANLkTinGCmJ-sbnRP-41QNmwGyGDO9_a8eimXSPF6ku4@mail.gmail.com>
>
>
> On Mon, August 9, 2010 02:59, Ben Schwarz wrote:
> > Because you can find an example isn't exactly what I would call a "use
> > case".
>
> I didn't find "an example", I found many - more than one of which I
> quoted, by way of illustration. What would you call a use case?
>
> > Nor were those pages examples of best practice in any way, shape or
> > form.
>
> These requirements are new to me. Where are they documented?


They aren't documented at all (afaik). Its a common design methodology to
design for only what you actually require at a given time.

"There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are
known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we now know we don?t
know. But there are also unknown unknowns. These are things we do not know
we don?t know."

Given that one of the principals of HTML5 is to have a well designed product
that is easily understandable, I'd prefer to follow the path of simplistic,
minimal design.

Not one where every example found will be implemented?I'd like to think that
a browser vendor would find it very difficult to schedule the time to
implement such a full featured method of handling every date representation
known to man, rather than "other awesome feature x".
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20100809/c733b893/attachment-0001.htm>
Received on Sunday, 8 August 2010 19:20:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 13 April 2015 23:08:59 UTC