- From: Ray Cromwell <ray_cromwell@yahoo.com>
- Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 20:08:21 -0800 (PST)
- To: Paul Prescod <paul@prescod.net>, www-forms@w3.org
Why not use <loadURI> to do it? It seems to me that
these common "query" GET requests are not really
"forms" but merely link navigations that take a single
parameter, sort of like the old ISINDEX or <AREA> and
client or server-side image maps. I see Google's
"form" as nothing more than an <ISINDEX>
Google nor eBay would ever use GET to collect "real
form data", including shipping, billing, or other
database oriented information, for several reasons.
First of all, it's insecure and shows up in log files.
Secondly, because of the well known problems with GET.
Third, because of the i18n issues.
Finally, just because Google, eBay, and everyone else
uses GET for these purposes doesn't mean that its a
good thing, just that there was no alternative. Does
Google still use GET if the user is SHIFT-JIS
encoded?Google, eBay, and everyone else also uses
plain HTML forms, so should we not introduce XForms
since Google might have to chance their coding
practices?
Anyway, here's my workaround
<xforms:input ref="/q"/>
<xforms:button>
<caption>Google Search</caption>
<xforms:action evt:event="xforms:valueChanged">
<loadURI
href="concat('http://www.google.com/search?q=', q)"/>
</xforms:action>
</xforms:button>
> That's how Google works. That's how Yahoo works.
> That's how Slashdot
> works. That's how ebay works. That's how Amazon
> works. You can't
> deprecate one of the most common uses of forms
> without an adequate
> alternative!
>
> Paul Prescod
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/
Received on Thursday, 17 January 2002 23:08:22 UTC