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: Ian Fette <ifette@google.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 19:15:53 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=z6mwtmEq4viRKmLZsQOYNpULnRH_GbEhXW+ZM@mail.gmail.com>
I don't understand why I would need an <input type=year> to get this right
though. If the bank wants something in ?? it can just let the user type in
1985 and convert that via JS to ??60?, no? If anything, having some sort of
picker seems like it would be more complicated.

Frankly, this seems a bit over-complicated. The number of times a user will
be entering a year other than 1900->present has got to
be infinitesimally small. In reflecting upon the years I've entered, it'a
almost always been a living person's date of birth, some event I was
scheduling, a date for something I was purchasing (e.g. airline ticket), or
the present date.

I really don't know if it's worth spending time on something that is such a
minor use case, and can frankly be handled fine without a dedicated input
type.

And niwa-san, on every document I've ever filled out for the Japanese
government, I've always written 1985? instead of  ??60? and it's yet to
cause me any problems ;-) I do understand that there are some sites that
want it written in the traditional form, but these seem to be precious few
and far between, and frankly are not the sites I would expect to find HTML5
form input elements on anyways if the US government is any indication of
moving to new standards...


On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 5:33 PM, Ryosuke Niwa <ryosuke.niwa at gmail.com> wrote:

> I'd just say that there might be a demand for this feature in Japan (if
> localized properly) because all official government document needs to dated
> with "era name" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_era_name).  Some
> banks even implement their internal database systems using "era" system, and
> it's always cumbersome for humans to convert between "era" and Gregorian
> year.
>
> Best,
> Ryosuke Niwa
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 6:11 PM, Kit Grose <kit at iqmultimedia.com.au> wrote:
>
>> The field being four digits long doesn't restrict its contents to four
>> digits only. I suppose you do raise an interesting concern; should the
>> "year" field also permit the entry of BC/AD? If so, that might invalidate
>> the ability to use a number field; you'd need to use a validation pattern on
>> a standard text field.
>>
>> ?Kit
>>
>> On 09/08/2010, at 10:46 AM, Andy Mabbett wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > On Mon, August 9, 2010 00:44, Kit Grose wrote:
>> >> How is a "year" input any different from a four-digit input
>> type="number"
>> >> field?
>> >
>> > Years can be more of fewer than four digits. Julius Caesar was born in
>> 100
>> > BC, for instance, while Manius Acilius Glabrio was consul in 91 AD.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Andy Mabbett
>> > @pigsonthewing
>> > http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>> >
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20100809/ef9afc19/attachment.htm>
Received on Monday, 9 August 2010 19:15:53 UTC

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