- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 20:56:47 +0000 (UTC)
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008, Garrett Smith wrote: > > There is no note in the WF 2.0 specification, nor the HTML 4.01, nor the > HTML DOM specifications that an element should not be named "submit" or > "action" to avoid such consequences. Was this considered? I don't think we want to limit these names, since this would be an unbounded set of names that made older documents non-conforming as the language evolved. > What is the decision for advocating the coding practice of > form-as-collection? It's convenient. > What is the rationale for standardizing it? Browsers support it. > The implied expectation of the specification is that the values for > form.action and form.submit will be replaced by elements of the > corresponding name. It could be expected that an element named "length" > or "tagName" would create a "length" property on the form, except for > the fact that form.length is defined as readonly[1] in another > specification. What should happen in that case? Can a readonly property > be replaced? What is the suggested approach for submitting to an API > that requires a parameter named "submit" or "action"? WebIDL will define these cases. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Monday, 10 November 2008 12:56:47 UTC