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

[whatwg] WHAT calls for final comments on Web Forms 2.0 proposal

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 15:33:41 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0501251353240.20315@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005, Sander wrote:
>
> Some (mostly) nitpicky comments on the last call for comments draft (I checked
> that all issues are still present in the current draft).
> 
> section 2.4:
>    "if (event.target.time1.value &gt;= event.target.time2.value) {"
> --> if (event.target.time1.value <= event.target.time2.value) {

No, that would make the example invalid XHTML.


> section 2.4.2:
>    "The following control would only allow selection of any Sunday in any year
> from 1900:"
> --> The following control would only allow selection of any Sunday in any year
> from 1900 onward:

Fixed.


> section 2.15:
>    "There is currently no way to specify an unlimited number of files may be
> uploaded"
> --> There is currently no way to specify that an unlimited number of files may
> be uploaded

Fixed.


> section 3.1.1:
>    "The concept of hierarchy is expected to be represented in the names, as it
> is manually-created repeating forms"
> --> The concept of hierarchy is expected to be represented in the names, as it
> is in manually-created repeating forms

Fixed.


> section 3.1.2:
>    "In HTML4-compliant UAs that do not implement this specification, the
> template acts as an initial blank row, and the "add" and "remove", buttons
> cause the form to be submitted"
> Maybe note that this is only true for button type="add", not for input
> type="add"?

Added a note.


> section 3.2:
>    "In order to implement such a form declaratively"
> It's been several paragraphs since a form of any kind has been described, and
> in fact, forms aren't the only use for this. This looks like an
> overenthusiastic copy/paste somewhere in the dim past.
> --> In order to implement the repetition model declaratively

Changed the sentence to drop that part altogether.


> section 6.1:
>    "Note 1:"
> As there is no second note, perhaps this should just be "Note:"?
> And actually, when I read // see note 1 below, I found myself scanning down
> for the kind of green text that denotes all other notes. Is there a reason
> this one isn't marked up as such?

Fixed.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 25 January 2005 07:33:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 13 April 2015 23:08:21 UTC