- From: Dean Edwards <dean@edwards.name>
- Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 19:25:19 +0100
Ian Hickson wrote: > On Sat, 19 Jun 2004, Malcolm Rowe wrote: > >>Personally, I'm not so sure. The logic required to support the >>repetition model is extremely complex, compared to the rest of the >>document, so it should need to provide a significant benefit to us >>(users, authors) for it to be included. > > > It looks complex because it is new and all described in the spec. But > actually it's not really complex, it's just described in a detailed way. > I'm sure submission is a lot more complicated if you look at the actual > details to the same level. > > i can vouch for this. i knocked up a prototype of the repetition model and although the wording is kinda scary it does fall into place when you code it. i also agree that form submission is far more difficult to implement. > >>It sounds like a good idea in theory. For example, all those order-entry >>applications could use it instead of providing a large input form with >>'add/delete' buttons. But in reality, where would it be used? I've been >>trying to think of examples, and I'm having trouble. > > last year i implemented a timesheet application on a corporate network of 30,000 users. it has the concept of adding rows to the timesheet based on a hidden template row. my current client wants a cross-browser dynamic HTML table with add and delete buttons. these examples are too obscure to detail but they want six of them. > > >>I guess it boils down to this: it's really complex, so show me a >>compelling use case. I'm not against it, just not particularly sure >>whether I should be 'for' it. > for a client side web developer the repetition model is the best thing in the spec. (but i think the <repeat> tag should be a PI ;-) -dean
Received on Thursday, 24 June 2004 11:25:19 UTC