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

[whatwg] Markup for Web Forms 2.0 that still requires discussion

From: Jim Ley <jim.ley@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 16:19:54 +0100
Message-ID: <851c8d3104071208193768fc80@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 11:00:58 -0400, Matthew Raymond
<mattraymond at earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>So all that is necessary is defining the few self known classid's for
> >>the different new elements, remember OBJECTs are already part of form
> >>submissions in HTML 4.01.
> >
> > Whatever happened to this idea. It seems like it was never officially
> > shot down, but discussion about it just died out. It still seems a
> > good idea to me.
> 
>    There were two reasons for not using this. First, you'd have to have
> a different |classid| for each input type. 

That's a reason?  I'm sorry, that's exactly equivalent to "you'd have
to have a different string in each type"    It's not a reason to
reject.

> Next, you'd either have to add new attributes to handle stuff
> like |value| and |name|

nope, OBJECT is already a form element, and has a name.  You would
need to use a PARAM or a new value attribute for a defaultValue,  I
don't see how that invalidates the suggestion.

> It's also my understanding that there were certain
> complications involved with the |classid| value, but I forget what those
> were.

Only that my example using URN was poorly chosen in that it's not
usable, picking a different URI is no problem.

None of these reasons are particular onerous, I hope there are other
ones being used to reject this.

Jim.
Received on Monday, 12 July 2004 08:19:54 UTC

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