- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 09:18:17 +0000 (UTC)
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004, Erik Arvidsson wrote: > > Would it not be better to limit the repetition buttons to <button> since > that would be backwards compatible. In a non-conforming user agent > inputs with unrecognized type attributes are usually treated as > type="text" and would therefore be a lot harder to work with. For > <button> one can easily add an onclick (DOMActivate) and do the logic > using javascript but if <input> is allowed this will make it a lot > harder. > > What is the main reason for supporting both input and button? Both are allowed because there seemed to be a convention in HTML4 to support both, and it doesn't seem harmful. I've changed the spec to use <button> in the examples, but bear in mind that the default action of <button> in legacy UAs is to submit. Actually maybe that's a good thing. It would mean you could implement all of this on the server side if the client side doesn't have JS enabled. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 16 June 2004 02:18:17 UTC