- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 12:02:47 +0000 (UTC)
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005, Olav Junker Kj?r wrote: > > This could easily be solved by keeping the name "autocomplete" but > redefine its sematics as indicating that the input data is sensitive. > (the recommended default UI in UA's that support autocompletion would > still be as described in the spec). Of course the name will be slightly > misleading now, but thats not a big deal. "checkbox" is also a name that > suggest an UI representation, but the semantics is still defined as UI > neutral. Done. On Mon, 21 Mar 2005, Matthew Raymond wrote: > > Actually, now that I think about it, why do we need to have a spec > saying that it's not depreciated or that it should be non-trivial to > deactivate if the banks are going to blackmail UAs to support it? Because to be useful, specs have to be realistic. > Why support blackmail through our specifications. If banks force them to > implement a specific attribute in a specific way, fine, but don't force > user agents to do it that way as a matter of spec compliance. Ok. I changed it to a SHOULD. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 23 March 2005 04:02:47 UTC