- From: Jonathan Watt <jwatt@jwatt.org>
- Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 23:37:24 +0000
- To: whatwg@lists.whatwg.org
On 18/02/2014 23:17, Ian Hickson wrote: > On Tue, 18 Feb 2014, Jonathan Watt wrote: >> >> When implementing <input type=number> for Mozilla I decided to display >> the value to the user using the grouping separator (generally the >> thousands separator) of the users locale. So, for example, if the >> input's value is 1234 and the user's locale is English, it is displayed >> to the user as "1,234". >> >> This is causing a problem for at least media wiki, because they use >> <input type=number> for year input. For example: >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IRIX&action=history >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/newbies >> >> The question is, should I change Mozilla's implementation to stop >> displaying the internal value using grouping separators, or is it wrong >> to use <input type=number> for year input. I'm erring on the former, but >> I'd like to solicit others' thoughts on this matter. >> >> I should also note that I can still allow the implementation to accept >> input from the user that contains grouping separators, even if when the >> internal value is set/changed the visual result will be updated to a >> string that does not contain grouping separators. > > My recommendation would be to just use comma separation It would be the appropriate separator(s) for the locale in use, not necessarily the comma, but I'm guessing that's what you meant. > for numbers > greater than 9999. It doesn't help that much for four-digit numbers, and > years beyond four digits often _do_ have commas, e.g.: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_10,000_problem > > I agree that it's a bit weird (though not particularly wrong) for > four-digit years to have commas. Personally I think it's a bit more than a bit weird to have "Year: 2,014". It seems pretty ugly to me, and four digit years are going to be the common case. > type=number does seem appropriate for years, though. I wonder if it would be that bad to have a 'year' type to compliment the 'month' and 'day' types...
Received on Tuesday, 18 February 2014 23:37:51 UTC