- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 23:53:15 +0000 (UTC)
On Sun, 12 Jul 2009, Bruce Lawson wrote: > > The eleventy squillion WordPress sites out there that allow comments ask > for your web page address as well as name and email. The method of > entering a URL does not require the http:// prefix; just beginning the > URL with www is accepted. > > As it's very common for people to drop the http:// prefix on > advertising, business cards etc (and who amongst us reads out the prefix > when reading a URL on the phone?) I'd like to suggest that input > type="url" allows the http:// prefix to be optional on input and, if > ommitted, be assumed when parsing. Assuming you mean user input, it already is allowed to be optional; the spec doesn't prevent the user agent from doing whatever they want in terms of fixups. On Mon, 13 Jul 2009, Ian Pouncey wrote: > On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 3:48 PM, Kornel Lesinski<kornel at geekhood.net> > wrote: > > On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 09:46:19 +0100, Bruce Lawson <brucel at opera.com> > > wrote: > > > >> As it's very common for people to drop the http:// prefix on > >> advertising, business cards etc (and who amongst us reads out the > >> prefix when reading a URL on the phone?) I'd like to suggest that > >> input type="url" allows the http:// prefix to be optional on input > >> and, if ommitted, be assumed when parsing. > > > > The spec explicitly allows that actual value seen and edited by the > > user in the interface is different from DOM value of the input, so > > browsers are free to prepend http:// automatically (and IMHO should ? > > DSK-253195). > > To make this less ambiguous I would prefer that we talk about making it > optional to specify a protocol or scheme name (personal preference for > protocol) rather than http:// specifically. While http will be the most > common protocol by far it is not the only possibility. The scheme is not optional in the submission format. > I have no problems with the idea though, I just think there needs to be > a mechanism for highlighting the change to the user rather than this > being hidden in the DOM. That's a UI issue, which is more or less out of scope of the spec. On Mon, 13 Jul 2009, Bruce Lawson wrote: > > Excellent. And, while I don't doubt you at all, I'm abashed that I > missed that nuance, especially as it'#s explicitly allowed? Where would > I find that in the spec? On Mon, 13 Jul 2009, Kornel wrote: > > The "URL state" section says that value in DOM may be different from > value in the user interface: > > http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/forms.html#url-state > > The example difference given in the spec is URL-escaping, but in my > understanding, it should allow to prepending of protocol as well (I > admit that last bit is not stated explicitly). Right. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Monday, 27 July 2009 16:53:15 UTC