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

[whatwg] Re: several messages

From: James Graham <jg307@cam.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 17:27:30 +0000
Message-ID: <41FE6A82.5080302@cam.ac.uk>
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

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