- From: James Graham <jg307@cam.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 17:27:30 +0000
James Graham wrote: > Matthew Raymond wrote: > >> >> | <label for="d1">First Date:</label> >> | <dateinput id="d1" name="d1" value="2005-01-30"> >> | <select name="d1_month"><!-- Options --></select> >> | <select name="d1_day"><!-- Options --></select> >> | <select name="d1_year"><!-- Options --></select> >> | </dateinput> > > > I haven't been following all the discusion about date formats but, > subject to that proviso, this construct alone (without any inheritance > of attributes) seems to address the major concern that has been raised > about the datetime types (lack of a decent way of providing fallback). > A WF2 UA would simply display:none all children of the dateinput > element. The values corresponding to these child controls could be > submitted, or not, depending on the whim of the UA developer (or > rather on the particular limitations of their browser codebase). The > user would have to look for a value of the <dateinput> control in the > submitted fields to determine whether to use the WF2 or legacy values. > That seems to be easy enough to implement that all vendors should get > it right and it provides authors with a mechanism for usable fallback. > But, as I said, I haven't followed the discussion, so I might be wrong. To be cler, I don't intend to suggest that the children of the dateinput element be limited to anything specific i.e. the construction would be: <dateinput> <!-- Child elements for legacy UAs --> </dateinput> -- "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 Monday, 31 January 2005 09:27:30 UTC