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

> 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.

The rest of ["form functionality"]( https://kaleidea.github.io/whatwg-search-proposal/implementation#:~:text=the%20same%20functionality.-,Form%20behavior%20that%E2%80%99s%20enabled%20even%20without%20a%20form%20element%3A%20no%20change ) is either optional or available even without a form. The feature that's not disabled is associating form controls, which 1) does not affect developers who don't need it and 2) it's a benefit as authors now can add a reset button that works natively. There is no known use-case that would conflict with this solution. Although, if you know one, feel free to share.

I'll note that we have discussed this since November 4+ times: [1]( https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/5811#issuecomment-961785189 ), [2]( https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/5811#issuecmment-981973258 ), [3]( https://kaleidea.github.io/whatwg-search-proposal/div-functionality ),  [January triage meeting]( https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/7385 ). The "form submit functionality is disabled if the action attribute is unspecified".

This is a good example of how facts that don't agree with others' preconceived notions are ignored, but there are countless more examples. This is the underlying issue in the standardization process.


-- 
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/714#issuecomment-1034723729
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: <w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/714/1034723729@github.com>