- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2011 20:51:42 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13173 --- Comment #15 from Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> 2011-07-10 20:51:42 UTC --- (In reply to comment #13) > (In reply to comment #11) > > One reason that comes to mind is showing accurate diagnostics to the user. > > More specifically? If you do not know that the user typed, you can't tell him/her what was wrong. (Yes, that's a general problem with client-side validation when what the user types is not what's being sent to the server) > (In reply to comment #12) > > Quoting myself: "To have full control of input data". In development, full > > control is always preferable over partial control when something is unknown. > > Full control provides more flexibility regardless of a specific case. > > <input type=text> gives full control. Why do you want to use <input type=url>, > if you want it to be able to contain things that aren't URLs? Something > without a protocol is not a URL, and will not work in practically any scenario > where a URL is needed -- e.g., <a href> or other types of links embedded in > content. The only place where it will usually behave like a URL is if you type > it into a navigation bar. Not true. <a href> takes a references, not a what the HTML spec calls a "URL". So, yes, it will absolutely work with something like "foo.html", and thus this input type doesn't help at all for inserting hrefs. -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Sunday, 10 July 2011 20:51:48 UTC