- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 09:20:21 +0100
On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 08:05:54 +0100, Peter Kasting <pkasting at google.com> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 11:01 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas at sicking.cc> wrote: >> Would be great if you could provide a reason why you feel this way. > > Did the previous messages in the thread not say enough reasons? Ian's > response was basically "then how would we solve use cases 1 and 2?" which > was why I was clarifying that I did not have an alternative solution, I > felt that they are cases we should not be trying to solve. You wrote in that thread: > This seems like an attempt to make life slightly easier on webpage > authors by providing boilerplate UI if they don't want to write > anything. But I see that as a small benefit with significant edge > cases. Authors are already expected to supply the textual content inthe > page, the text in alerts, etc., so providing the text in the"validation > failed" UI doesn't seem that bad. The UA can still dothings like turn > fields red or add warning sign icons or something if itlikes. Isn't the benefit rather big? I can just use <input type=email> on my page and the user agent will take care of ensuring it is correct (on the client side) and provide the appropriate messages to the user in case the user made a mistake. Anything beyond that will require scripting which seems overkill for e.g. blog comments. I'm not too convinced with #2 though so exposing the message is probably not needed. (And if the user agent can somehow provide a non-textual user interface for the above that should be allowed too.) -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Friday, 12 February 2010 00:20:21 UTC