- From: Jim Ley <jim.ley@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 14:28:02 +0100
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 13:07:17 +0000 (UTC), Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote: > On Thu, 22 Jul 2004, Jim Ley wrote: > > Rather than the current situation where everything is an INPUT I don't > > see the difference there. > > "input" conveys that the data is a single field of data input. Which isn't the case in any of these combined controls... so I don't think that's a good argument. > > Also, degrading to IE6 is not a required long term strategy surely? So > > at some point we can stop worrying about it and create a sensible new > > model. > > The "sensible new model" is presumably XForms. No, I've made no comment on X-Forms, I don't like XForms, but not liking XForms doesn't mean I have to agree with this. > If it wasn't for IE, we wouldn't have to even _consider_ abusing <object>, > so I don't really see your point here anyway. Wouldn't we? I certainly would, Unlike most people I care about degrading on all old UA's, not just IE6, you seem to think everyone upgrades immediately, but I don't, not least because I know there's no way I can update my copy of Opera to something newer, I'm sure other people are in similar positions. > > I much prefer it to overloading INPUT. > > One possibility that has been risen (and which will be considered to WF3 > once we have more experience with the datetime controls in WF2) is to use > a new element for the date/time controls. That would be preferable to the > <object> solution. Perhaps, so why not do it now? you're suggesting we create as a standard something now that we know is wrong, why not do it right in the first place? > But we shouldn't try to solve problems that aren't obviously problems. It > isn't clear to me that the current date/time fields have inadequate > fallback; Yes, but it is clear to me, but we've been over this... Jim.
Received on Thursday, 19 August 2004 06:28:02 UTC