- From: Matthew Thomas <mpt@myrealbox.com>
- Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 14:56:38 +1200
On 1 Jul, 2004, at 8:32 PM, Jim Ley wrote: > > On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 19:45:55 +0000 (UTC), Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> > wrote: > ... >> CSS is quite capable of doing most widget looks > > I'm not interested in widget looks - I'm interested in a date control > being 3 fields, since that is what users understand - can CSS do this? > ... There's actually a good point here. A vanilla text control isn't necessarily the best thing for a datepicker to degrade to in non-WF2 clients. Consider this syntax instead: <datepicker id="expiry" elements="m,y"> <!-- or similar --> <select id="month"> <option value="1">Jan</option> <option value="2">Feb</option> <option value="3">Mar</option> <option value="4">Apr</option> <option value="5">May</option> <option value="6">Jun</option> <option value="7">Jul</option> <option value="8">Aug</option> <option value="9">Sep</option> <option value="10">Oct</option> <option value="11">Nov</option> <option value="12">Dec</option> </select> <input id="year" type="text"> </datepicker> This syntax is more brittle, because it leaves people with no recourse if the author doesn't bother to include (or test) the non-WF2 alternative. (Compare <http://www.google.com/search? q=%22This+page+uses+frames%2C+but+your+browser+doesn%27t%22+- noframes>.) But if authors *do* implement and test such a fallback, it'll be much easier to use than having to enter an ISO date complete with Ts and Zs. So the question is, which probability is greater for the average person using a non-WF2 UA? (1) that they'll be skilled enough to enter an ISO date, complete with Ts and Zs; (2) that the author will remember to include and test a non-WF2 fallback. (Apologies if this has been suggested before.) -- Matthew Thomas http://mpt.net.nz/
Received on Thursday, 1 July 2004 19:56:38 UTC