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 LabsReceived 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