- From: Dean Edwards <dean@edwards.name>
- Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2005 23:55:38 +0100
Ian Hickson wrote: > On Thu, 24 Mar 2005, Csaba Gabor wrote: >>2. Repetition model. >>The Draft has a huge amount of space devoted to this, >>but I haven't been able to think of a single compelling >>argument for it. Most of the control enhancements such >>as validation are conveniences, after all, but what they >>have going for them is that they are very compact. This >>repetition model is huge and messy and there are simple >>javascript programming methods that allow you to do the >>same thing. This developer's opinion is that I would >>far rather roll my own and not even have the possibility >>of using this construct. > I'd be interested to know what your home-rolled solution would look like. If we can cater for your requirements then we have a flexible model. Yes, there are already JavaScript alternatives but they are difficult to produce and become even more complex when trying for a cross-browser solution. What I like about the WF2 Repetition Model is that caters for 99% of cases. There will always be edge cases but existing DOM methods, as you say, provide a means for building particular models already. In other words, if you feel that the Repetition Model is inadequate, please specify... > > Yeah, several people have said that. We're thinking about removing it. On > the other hand, several people have said that it is a godsend and that > they are so happy it is there because they are fed up of rolling their > own. At the moment it's about equally matched, in fact. > > The model is pretty simple and relatively easy to implement, so I'm > leaning towards keeping it. > Ian, I thought we'd sorted this out. We had exactly the same discussion a few weeks back and nobody came up with any objections to the current model. I quite like Olav's idea to separate the Repetition Model from the existing WF2 spec. This would give us time to discuss it a bit more without impacting the rest of WF2. Maybe the Repetition Model should be separate anyway? Personally, if I was considering using it on a site, I'd prefer to print off a separate spec to read. But that's just me. I /do/ recognise that this is a bit of an editorial headache however... ;-) -dean
Received on Tuesday, 5 April 2005 15:55:38 UTC