Re: Automatic Entry and Forms

hallam@zorch.w3.org
Mon, 26 Feb 96 18:14:08 -0500


From: hallam@zorch.w3.org
Message-Id: <9602262314.AA27113@zorch.w3.org>
To: Adam Jack <ajack@corp.micrognosis.com>, www-html@w3.org
Cc: hallam@zorch.w3.org
Subject: Re: Automatic Entry and Forms  
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 26 Feb 96 18:08:58 EST."
             <Pine.SUN.3.91.960226172201.957B-100000@singhi> 
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 96 18:14:08 -0500


>Having <INPUT TEMPLATE=URI NAME=FRED> is little different than having
>NAME=URI#FRED - is it?

Its actually quite difference because a browser that does not understand 
templates can simply ignore the template attribute. Binding the two together 
means that people who have existing uses for NAME fields get screwed.

>Having this in the standard seems to help any implementation more 
>than hinder it. Further - since we might as well combine the two
>parts of the tuple need there be any new HTML attributes?

Adding new attributes is easy. In the dim and distant past several attributes 
would be added in a single day.

Changing the semantics of an existing attribute is a very differnt matter 
however.


>I am trying to see your point - but failing. Any name that is LISP code
>is unlikely to appear in any template, correct? So what clashes here?

The Whitehouse server has a lot of template names such as 
"subject(user foo)" Some of this is trully wierd. Its not the only wierdness out 
there.

>Personally I fit into the 6 fields category of person - but that is 
>almost an aside.  I wonder -- do we all think it is 6? If so - hell,
>lets spend a few days voting on names forget templates and be done
>with it. Templates allow extensibility into areas that have not yet
>been considered.

This is the IETF, there are no votes. Templates allow extensibility which is a 
crtitical consideration in proposing any spec.

		Phill