- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 16:16:55 +1000
- To: Masataka Yakura <myakura.web@gmail.com>
- Cc: "Jukka K. Korpela" <jukka.k.korpela@kolumbus.fi>, public-html <public-html@w3.org>
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 7:27 PM, Masataka Yakura <myakura.web@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Silvia, > > On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 2:00 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 2:33 PM, Jukka K. Korpela >> <jukka.k.korpela@kolumbus.fi> wrote: >> > 2013-09-23 4:52, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote: >> >> >> >> FYI: being "at risk" has nothing to do with the usefulness of the >> >> feature - the spec's concern is whether there is cross-UA support of >> >> the feature. >> > >> > >> > Which in turn depends on how useful the feature is seen by implementors, >> > doesn't it? >> > And on the amount of work needed for implementation, of course. >> > >> > >> > >> >> Such a feature can be a useful feature (I personally have >> >> used such input types in my recent apps), but its standardisation may >> >> need to be delayed to the next version of HTML if UAs don't have >> >> uniform support of the feature. That's all. >> > >> > >> > According to >> > https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Element/input >> > the support status for type=date is the same as for type=datetime. So >> > there >> > must be >> > something else than the current implementation status that explains why >> > type=date >> > is not marked as being at risk and type=datetime is not. >> >> It's simply a matter of process. At the time that the spec went into >> Last Call, implementations were behind, so the feature was put "at >> risk". > > > So that means at that time, there was (or were) impl for the 'date' type but > not other date&time-related types, right? Correct. Cheers, Silvia.
Received on Wednesday, 25 September 2013 06:17:42 UTC