- From: voracity <subs@voracity.org>
- Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2004 22:36:20 +1000
Ian Hickson wrote: > 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. Ah, ok. I'm sold, then. This sounds good. > In both, though, a WF2 UA would only > submit one value, not two. Why would you want two? So I can work out on the server side if the user entered something new. When you think about it, there is no other way to send that information to the server without sending 2 values. Nevertheless, I can workaround it (for instance, check the database on the server side to see if the entry is already there).
Received on Thursday, 1 July 2004 05:36:20 UTC