- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 00:04:15 +0000 (UTC)
On Mon, 19 Jul 2004, George Lund wrote: > > Your suggestion [Jim] in ciwah was that we have > > > <object name=datetime classid="urn:wtfwg:datetime"> > > Day:<input name=day> > > Month: <input name=month> > > Year:<input name=day> > > Time:<input name=time> > > </object> > > My problem with this that now we have to overload the object element for every > extension we want to make to HTML. Ultimately everything becomes an object, > which isn't very "semantic". I strongly agree with that. Object's semantic is that it brings in an external resource; using some sort of classid hack that way is, IMHO, semantically bogus. > But I do agree that the more traditional HTML-like approach would have been > not to try to force the existing input element to do everything by means of > the type attribute. Perhaps a new element should have been made, like this: > > <datetime_input name="mydatetime"> > Day:<input name=day> > Month: <input name=month> > Year:<input name=day> > Time:<input name=time> > </datetime_input> > > I'm not saying my choice of names is any good but maybe the idea is helpful? > If it was already rejected then apologies. It's a reasonable idea; I think we should see how the current proposals are received by Web authors before changing it again, though. Maybe for WF3? -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 17 August 2004 17:04:15 UTC