- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 00:03:26 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Mikey Clarke <mikey.clarke@me.com>
- Cc: whatwg@lists.whatwg.org
On Thu, 18 Oct 2012, Mikey Clarke wrote: > > I'd like a little information on the motivation for using absolute URLs > on <input type="url"> validation. > > Currently <input type="url"> is to be validated using absolute URLs. > Thus, 'http://www.mysite.com' validates but 'www.mysite.com' does not. I > consider this to be a huge usability issue. An ordinary user when asked > to provide a URL will be very unlikely to provide the protocol. To an > ordinary user 'www.mysite.com' is the URL, not 'http://www.mysite.com'. > > Since most browsers that support both the new input types and that have > fully implemented form validation block submission of a form with > invalid inputs, a user entering 'www.mysite.com' is unable to submit > their form and is instead given an error. Even assuming that the error > notice is descriptive enough to alert to the absence of the required > protocol (this is currently _not_ the case), the user has already been > disrupted. Such strict validation is hostile and potentially confusing > to users. As a developer I currently feel compelled to use the > 'novalidate' attribute on forms containing type=url to protect my users > from this behaviour. > > I feel that if a developer requires the protocol, they are perfectly > capable of asking the user for it, and doing so in a much clearer way > than the browser itself. If the validation for URL fields is to remain > so strict, I really see little point in this input type being validated > at all; as a developer there is absolutely no way I can use this > validation as it stands, the potential for a poor user experience is > just too evident. The spec expects browsers to convert "www.example.com" to "http://www.example.com/" automatically so that this kind of issue doesn't occur. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 18 October 2012 00:03:53 UTC