Re: [w3ctag/design-reviews] <search> HTML element (Issue #714)

I would like to address one point, as I am called out directly:
>Only one web developer opposed form functionality (Scott, who wrote the specification): he has repeated Domenic's mistaken assumption about duplication and huge implementation costs. An unsound argument.

This is not accurate.  

I am not opposed to form functionality for a "search", but rather I am opposed to the direction the alternate proposal has taken.  It was mentioned early on in the `<search>` element request issue that HTML [could consider adding a `search` or `type=search` attribute](https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/5811#issuecomment-957904038) to the `<form>` element.  This attribute could then be used to change the implicit ARIA mapping of a `<form>` to a `role=search`.  

Effectively, the alternate proposal presented for a `<search>` element with form functionality has taken the most controversial path to achieve what an attribute on the `<form>` element could have accomplished.

Presently, the proposal which HTML has requested the TAG review for can also achieve the exact same functionality as the alternate "form functionality" proposal, but for the fact that web authors would be required to nest a `<form>` within a `<search>`.  This is a [minor ask for authors](https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/5811#issuecomment-956872211), as well as being a smaller request and [lower level of risk for browser implementation](https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/7320#issuecomment-1033725266).

I still believe having a `<search>` element without any of the functionality of a `<form>` is also beneficial in that it allows an alternative for web authors who want to natively specify a section of a web page as a `search` landmark, but they do not require any of the functionality of a `<form>`, as they have implemented their own functionality via JavaScript.



-- 
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/714#issuecomment-1033961330
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: <w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/714/1033961330@github.com>