- From: Malcolm Rowe <malcolm-what@farside.org.uk>
- Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 19:48:52 +0100
Ian Hickson writes: >> 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. The functionality in general, or pairing an input and select specifically? If the latter, I agree. If the former, well, it'd be a pity, but if we can't come up with something acceptable .. >> 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. Yeah, complete brokenness in existing clients _was_ the main problem I noted :) Regards, Malcolm
Received on Thursday, 24 June 2004 11:48:52 UTC