- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 03:38:48 +0000
- To: public-html-admin@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23589 Bug ID: 23589 Summary: Endangered Features : output Product: HTML WG Version: unspecified Hardware: PC OS: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: CR HTML5 spec Assignee: robin@w3.org Reporter: crazytonyi@gmail.com QA Contact: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org CC: public-html-admin@w3.org Of the 16 (by way of 11 bullet points) features that have been listed as *at risk* for lack of implementation, some of them I won't miss and I doubt most ever knew they ever existed. Some of the others be called back before they got a real chance, but that's the way it goes. But a few I am an almost offended to see on the list, at the very least incredibly disappointed. The entire list feels very...superficial. Like the wall of kids who didn't get picked for the kickball team or the ugly kids in the corner not dancing with anyone at homecoming. And honestly I'm not sure "lack of implementation" is the right way to decide which features get's tossed away. Lack of ability to implement, that would make sense. But unpopular because people didn't make entire blog posts to rally the troops, that's just throwing something away before the real developers who are looking for that one fix or one part that would solve some seemingly small problem and stumble on a new design pattern, etc etc etc. So that's my preamble. I plan to submit a bug for each of the features which don't deserve to be on that list, whether it's on their merits, their true potential, or simply that whoever did the tally was *wrong*. And the first one is the nerdiest duckling in the bunch, I think. And the one I had needed many times but didn't know was an option, let alone was missing: <output> First an foremost. Not implemented? Maybe not sexy. Maybe not part of a web app that gives it street cred yet. It's wallflower demeanor keep it off even the comprehensive lists like: http://caniuse.com/#search=output But not implemented. Check again: http://html5test.com/compare/feature/form-output-element.html I've never been good at counting and whatnot, but it looks like this friendly, simple to understand, "hey why not, it'll boost our score" element is implemented by the current and most recent release of every major browser and even most gaming consoles. And why shouldn't it be? The value of this element is not having to store the value of other inputs into some heavily stylized read-only input. it's basically a div that you can pass a value to. How cool is that? And maybe that doesn't make for a great blog post, but if you've ever written a time sheet webapp (which I have and so has my mother, no lie) that adds in two directions with a grand total, or a billing statement with 15 subtotals *none* of which will ever be writable but could be by a simple DOM tweak and never should look like they could be writable, but will with CSS disabled... output was the element that I never new I could have. Now it's on a chopping block due to "lack of implementation", presumably because Internet Explorer was focusing on finally getting canvas support and didn't notice this easy to implement element. Final note, regarding output. Of the neat new interactive and palpable content, it looks like IE has taken a pass on output. Why have I still not seen a decent demo of <menu type="toolbar"> ? Sounds like a really hand idea. And sexy too. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 22 October 2013 03:38:50 UTC