- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 12:20:12 +0000 (UTC)
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004, voracity wrote: > Hmmm, I don't mind this. It's nicer than the first example in the sense > that I would not have to write any JS for either WF2 UAs or legacy UAs > under any of the use cases I described earlier (with additional > attributes). However, the first example is much cleaner for what is > probably the most common case. > > I'm not sure which I prefer. On these examples _alone_ I think I prefer > the second (so long as WF2 _does_ submit 2 values). The proposal was to allow both. In both, though, a WF2 UA would only submit one value, not two. Why would you want two? I agree with most of the rest of what you said. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 1 July 2004 05:20:12 UTC