- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 23:08:09 +0000 (UTC)
On Fri, 2 Jul 2004, Matthew Thomas wrote: >> >> 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. True, and while such UAs are a concern, it would probably be worth not using the new date-related types. > [snip proposed syntax] I don't really see that the advantage of this (more graceful fallback) outweighs the disadvantages (massively more complex markup, much harder to test, no simplification on the server side). > 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. Neither of these is required; servers can instead support free-form date entry heuristics to handle legacy UAs. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 6 July 2004 16:08:09 UTC