W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > May 2010

[whatwg] RFC: <input type="username">

From: Ashley Sheridan <ash@ashleysheridan.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 06 May 2010 13:53:49 +0100
Message-ID: <1273150429.2214.10.camel@localhost>
On Thu, 2010-05-06 at 14:54 +0200, Thomas Broyer wrote:

> On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 12:12 PM, Mounir Lamouri wrote:
> > On 05/06/2010 12:09 PM, Thomas Broyer wrote:
> >> On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 11:51 AM, Markus Ernst <derernst at gmx.ch> wrote:
> >>> Am 05.05.2010 23:06 schrieb Schalk Neethling:
> >>>>
> >>>> The way I see it is that instead of browsers traversing the DOM looking
> >>>> for
> >>>> an input field of either id=username or name=username or even
> >>>> class=username, they now only have to look for an input of type username.
> >>>> Makes it a lot easier for both developers and browser vendors as they now
> >>>> only have to look for an input of type username and gives developers the
> >>>> freedom to use any name, id or class.
> >>>
> >>> But in many cases the username is an e-mail address, then you get a conflict
> >>> with type="email".
> >>
> >> type=email is expected to (depending on the browser) allow you to
> >> search into/autocomplete from your address book. I really don't see a
> >> conflict here, it's not about syntax, it's about "semantics"
> >> (otherwise, just use a pattern="" constraint).
> >
> > The input type='email' isn't only about semantic. The browser has to
> > check if the email is valid according to HTML5 specifications. Please,
> > have a look at:
> > http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/forms.html#valid-e-mail-address
> >
> > If the entered email address is invalid, the element will suffer from a
> > type mismatch.
> 
> Of course, just like type=url requires the URL to be a valid absolute
> URL, while hinting browsers to autocomplete based on your bookmarks
> and/or search history (note: not your "account manager").
> 
> Would you use a type=number (that some browsers would present as a
> spinner box) if the usernames were only digits?
> 
> (BTW, the syntax for an e-mail address to be considered valid is quite
> lax, and can be easily reproduced using a pattern="" constraint, as I
> already said)
> 


I wouldn't say the syntax is lax, just that it allows a lot of
variation. 

Thanks,
Ash
http://www.ashleysheridan.co.uk


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20100506/01a635a8/attachment.htm>
Received on Thursday, 6 May 2010 05:53:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:59:23 UTC