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

[whatwg] Re: Comments on "Web Forms 2.0"

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 12:41:44 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0507061147150.21582@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>
On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
> >>
> >> Section 2.16 notes
> >> 
> >>   The form element's action attribute is no longer a required attribute.
> >>   Authors may omit it. When the attribute is absent, UAs must act as if
> >>   the action attribute was the empty string, which is a relative URI
> >>   pointing at the current document (or the specified base URI, if any). 
> >
> >The intent is for it to go to http://example.org/y/.
> 
> I'd suggest to include an example to this effect.

Done.


> >I don't really know what to change to satisfy your comment here. The value 
> >format for type="url" is defined (the IRI token); processing is defined in 
> >terms of whether values match the format.
> 
> You could add a note that any string that matches the IRI token is valid
> even if the string fails to satisfy other applicable requirements such
> as scheme-specific syntax constraints, e.g., per RFC 2616, http://x:y@
> example.org/ is not allowed but would be valid for the purposes of the
> specification. If that's desired.

Done.


> >> The document does not conform to http://www.w3.org/TR/charmod/ (e.g., 
> >> content is not required to conform to charmod in order to conform to the 
> >> specification).
> >
> >Fixed. Well, that is fixed. I don't know if there are any other problems.
> 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/charmod/#sec-Checklist has a list of requirements, 
> it'd be a good idea to review the draft against it if you haven't done 
> so already.

Just went through and checked for compliance; fixed the minor issues I 
found. No major issues found, I think I already did this once.


> >> The draft is unclear about whether e.g. "application/xml" matches 
> >> "image/svg+xml".
> >
> >Yes. I'm not sure we want to define this at this time, at least not in 
> >this spec. What do you think?
> 
> I think media ranges are quite useless for e.g. http://validator.w3.org 
> since it basically supports any XML document and text/html documents...

Yes, it would not be useful for everyone.


> It seems the draft considers accept="*/*" invalid yet implementations 
> must assume this value if the value is invalid.

Fixed.


> It also does not define whether parameters like ;charset=... are 
> allowed. It would be good to have a clear production rule here.

Fixed.


> >No, the intention is that extensions must not cause UAs to do things 
> >which directly contradict what the spec says. Like, it would be ok to 
> >include a new DOM attribute that returned the time it took the user to 
> >select the current value (say), but not ok to define a new control that 
> >would appear in the .elements array.
> 
> I'd suggest to include such examples in the document.

Done.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 6 July 2005 05:41:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:58:41 UTC