- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 01:58:14 +0000 (UTC)
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005, Matt Wright wrote: > > 1) For checkboxes, wouldn't it would make more sense from a web > applications standpoint if this applied to a checkbox group like radio > buttons currently does? > > OLD: "For checkboxes, the required attribute shall only be satisfied > when the checkbox is checked." > > NEW: "For checkboxes, the required attribute shall only be satisfied > when one or more of the checkboxes in that checkbox group is checked." > > If authors want the behavior currently specified in the draft, they simply > name that checkbox something different from all other fields in the form. Fair enough. Changed. > 2) Why can't the required attribute apply to a select field? It is common > for application designers to want to force the user to manually select an > option. They will do something like <option value="">Please select a valid > option</option>. You could easily word the document to say that: That's, IMHO, semantic abuse. That isn't an option, and shouldn't be called an option. I guess it would make sense to introduce "required" for <select> in a future version of Web Forms when WF has a way to provide a default text for <select> boxes (instead of <option> as above). > Or, you may not even need to re-word the document, but just remove > select from the list of unsupported controls, since the final catch-all > of this section explains "Any non-empty value satisfies the required > condition, including a simple whitespace character." What would that mean for <select multiple>? -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Sunday, 20 March 2005 17:58:14 UTC