W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > July 2004

[whatwg] Suggested changes to Web Forms 2.0, 2004-07-01 working

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2004 14:01:08 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0407091354550.11240@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>
On Thu, 8 Jul 2004, Matthew Thomas wrote:
>
> With a pointing device, it would still be faster to increment/decrement
> today's date to someone's birthday than it would be to
> increment/decrement an empty field to their birthday, because the latter
> would be impossible.

That depends on how the field works.


I've spoken with implementors and I have been assured that there is no
problem with defaulting a datepicker to no value.

Given that people have several times expressed that they want to be able
to distinguish between the field being skipped and the field being
completed, and given that if the author wants the field to default to a
value, they can do that too, I really think it is best to default to a
blank value.


>> Note how people wanted radio buttons to all be unchecked by default.
>> This is the same thing IMHO.
>
> Except that it is *possible* (even if not a good idea) to default a set
> of radio buttons to no particular value. But there are many controls
> that is not true for.

Right. I am told that it _is_ possible for datepickers, though.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Friday, 9 July 2004 07:01:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:58:35 UTC