W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > February 2005

[whatwg] Re: several messages

From: James Graham <jg307@cam.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 17:44:19 +0000
Message-ID: <420262F3.7000008@cam.ac.uk>
Matthew Raymond wrote:

> Ian Hickson wrote:
>> On Mon, 31 Jan 2005, James Graham wrote:
>>>> It has problems, as mentioned elsewhere in the thread:
>>>> * It is easy for authors to not include any fallback, which makes 
>>>> it worse than the <input> equivalent.
>>> In general, it is easy to make WF2 pages incompatible with older 
>>> browsers.
>> Granted, but at least it's not the default.
>    When using the inheritance feature of <idate>, incompatibility 
> isn't the default either, and the only situation in which you can't 
> use inheritance is when the first child control doesn't submit a 
> complete date. You're arguing a "Rogue Webmaster" scenario.

To be clear, my adaptation of this model did not include any such 
inheritance (for implementation simplicity). Having said that I don't 
think that requiring authors to explicitly provide fallback content is 
such a bad thing (at least, not worse than the limited fallback options 
offered by input). But more on that later.

"But if science you say still sounds too deep,
Just do what Beaker does, just shrug and 'Meep!'"

-- Dr. Bunsen Honeydew & Beaker of Muppet Labs
Received on Thursday, 3 February 2005 09:44:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:58:39 UTC