- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 14:53:44 +0000 (UTC)
On Fri, 4 Feb 2005, Lachlan Hunt wrote: > > I misread that several times as I was skimming through, thinking it > meant that using maxlength on uri and email fields was generally a good > thing. I suggest you reverse it so that it makes a little more sense. I > think this would be better: > > Authors are _discouraged from using_ maxlength on uri and email fields > _unless_ the server side processor actually has a limit on the size of > data fields it can usefully process. Valid URIs and e-mail addresses > in particular can often be surprisingly long. Good idea. Done. > Also, another grammatical error I came across several times throught the > draft is whenever it says "comply to", "complies to" or any other > variation. The correct preposition to use is actually "with", not "to". > Thus, they should read "comply with", "complies with", etc. I couldn't find any reference to back this up, but since I don't have a strong opinion either way, I changed them all to "with". -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 3 February 2005 06:53:44 UTC