- From: Mounir Lamouri <mounir.lamouri@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 19:01:01 +0200
On 07/20/2010 04:07 PM, Simon Pieters wrote: > On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 15:47:32 +0200, Mounir Lamouri > <mounir.lamouri at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I'm wondering why there is no categories for elements candidate for >> constraint validation. In the current state of the specs, all listed >> elements are candidate for constraint validation except when they are >> barred from constraint validation. Barring an element from constraint >> validation when it is in a certain state seems good but having elements >> always barred from constraint validation seems a bad idea. It makes them >> having the entire constraint validation API for nothing. >> >> Wouldn't that be preferable to have the constraint validation API >> implemented only on elements that can actually use it? I think it would >> probably be less confusing. >> >> So, anyone knows if there is a reason (too much categories already? >> easier describe in the specs?) to have this done this way or if it could >> be possible to have this new category? > > I believe some elements have the API but are barred because it makes it > easier to loop through form.elements and do the validation stuff without > checking if the validation stuff is available on the element. (Same > reason <textarea> has .type.) But <keygen>, <object>, <fieldset> and <output> are barred from constraint validation and <textarea>, <button>, <input> and <select> are not [1]. Half of the elements have a useless API, that sounds too much for me. I think it's not so complicated to loop through the form elements and checking if it implements a part of the constraint validation api or checking the tag name. There is another reason why all these elements implement an API they do not use? [1] In my opinion, <output> should not be barred and <button> should. But that's another topic. Thanks, -- Mounir
Received on Friday, 23 July 2010 10:01:01 UTC