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

[whatwg] Web Forms 2.0 comments

From: Sander <whatwg@juima.org>
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 11:30:03 +0100
Message-ID: <1088245803.40dd502bdd8de@webmail.kouwenhoven.net>
Quoting Hallvord Reiar Michaelsen Steen <hallvors at online.no>:
> I think I'm missing something here. What is the use case for ever 
> processing the "value" attribute to parse it for [id] - type things - 
> could it not be excluded by default?

I don't know a use case for using it in value, but Hixie stated (iirc) that
he had been privately shown uses for this.

> In fact I can not think of any reason to ever process anything except 
> "name", "id" and "template" attributes.

There are definitely more. "for" in labels to associate with the repeated
templates, "form" in any input element in cases of nested templates, and so
on. Basically anything which makes a reference to something which could be
inside a repetition template.

> Did you see my alternative "autoname" attribute suggestion?

I've glanced over all email op to this point, but not read deeply into most
things, so "not really". I'll be certain to pay attention to it when I next
read up more thoroughly though.

Received on Saturday, 26 June 2004 03:30:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:58:34 UTC