W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > January 2000

Re: input type="image" takes no name or value?

From: <Jukka.Korpela@hut.fi>
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 05:52:56 -0500 (EST)
To: www-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.4.10.10001241233590.15293-100000@gamma.hut.fi>
On Fri, 21 Jan 2000, Nick Traenkner wrote:

> Where is the error in my thinking the input element if type attr is set
> to image I should still be able to use the name and value attribute?

Nowhere. You might be in error though as regards to the _meaning_
of the name attribute. And the value attribute hasn't been implemented
(in this context) in most browsers; Opera is the only exception I know.
The usual explanation is that it would be security risk to implement it,
but considering the overall security of browsers, I'd say that this
is just more evidence to the statement that there are two reasons to
everything, the good reason and the real one.

See http://www.hut.fi/u/jkorpela/forms/file.html for some notes on
the implementation status.

> There is no warning listed for this.

It's an interesting question how much warnings about lack of
implementation or faulty implementations there should be in the
specifications. The basic point is of course that specs say how
things _should_ be. You need other material, such as
to have an idea of what has actually been implemented in browsers.
But in cases like <input type="file">, where most browsers are still
of poor quality in implementing it, a warning might be in order, IMHO.

But unless I have missed something, the general idea is to make
the specs more vague in this area; I mean specifically the intent
to obsolete RFC 1867 without including its basic content anywhere. Ref.:
The Internet-Draft "The 'text/html' Media Type" available e.g. from

Yucca, http://www.hut.fi/u/jkorpela/ or http://yucca.hut.fi/yucca.html
Received on Monday, 24 January 2000 05:56:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:52 UTC