- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 15:41:08 +0000 (UTC)
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004, Malcolm Rowe wrote: > Ian Hickson writes: >> Ok I read the thread on <select editable> and here is a summary of the >> ideas that seemed worth considering: >> >> [<select editable>] >> Con: In down-level clients, can only select from the list. > > To be honest, I think that this 'Con' is a show-stopper for this method. If > we have to choose between the legacy version being a 'select' or being 'an > editable' (i.e., a text box), then I think we should choose the latter. Fair point. > As you point out, we do also have the option of using both: a text box > paired with a select, in some form. While that provides the right > functionality in legacy clients, it'd be quite complex to author and use > (at the server-side), and I'd imagine, very complex for UA authors to > support. Yeah, I'm not sure it's worth the effort. > Just for the record, what I eventually ended up suggesting was something > you didn't mention. It worked out to something like this: > > <input type="email" name="test" data="..."> > <option>foo</option> > <option>bar</option> > </input> > > .. but I also noted several problems with that approach. That wouldn't be parsed that way in HTML (tag soup) parsers. Since <input> has no end tag, the <input> and <option> elements there would be siblings, and you'd end up with browsers doing all kinds of strange things. It could work in XHTML-only pages, but we'd need a solution in the meantime for HTML4 pages. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 24 June 2004 08:41:08 UTC