[whatwg] rel/rev for <form> ?

On Sun, 2005-11-06 at 15:30 -0800, Mike Dierken wrote:
> > Having rel/rev for a form element is logical. Hyperlink and 
> > form are inherently related in that both are used to specify 
> > protocol of communication. So, if hyperlink can have rel/rev, 
> > why not form?
> It could, sure. But the original request was to define the purpose of the
> URI in the action attribute, not the relatioship between the action URI and
> the <form> element, so rel/rev was overkill & possibly inappropriate.
> The meaning of a tag matching "html/body/form[@action]" is already
> documented - it defines the structure of a document acceptable by the
> resource identified by the action attribute. Defining the meaning of the
> document is probably more worthwhile, rather than the meaning of the
> resource that would accept that document.
> It would be cool to have the browser support POSTing some content type more
> sophisticated than www-url-encoded, like XML (no flames please).
> http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/interact/forms.html#form-content-type
> I honestly have no idea if the WHAT-WG is working on that, or some other
> group, or what.

W3C: XForms
WHATWG: Web Forms 2.0

both define XML submission content-types.

-- 
Jasper Bryant-Greene
General Manager
Album Limited

e: jasper at album.co.nz
w: http://www.album.co.nz/
b: http://jbg.name/
p: 0800 4 ALBUM (0800 425 286) or +64 21 232 3303
a: PO Box 579, Christchurch 8015, New Zealand

Received on Sunday, 6 November 2005 18:10:44 UTC