- From: remote <JHTaylor@videodiscovery.com>
- Date: Sat, 17 Feb 1996 16:20:51 -0800
- To: www-html@w3.org
- Cc: ajack@corp.micrognosis.com, preece@predator.urbana.mcd.mot.com
Great comments from Adam Jack <ajack@corp.micrognosis.com> and Scott E. Preece <preece@predator.urbana.mcd.mot.com>. Adam's "intelligent agent" matching of aliases to field names is pretty slick, but I have to agree with Scott that there are too many variations for this to be reliable. For example, I have written forms that feed into a database so I use the database field names in the NAME attribute for a direct mapping. One of the databases is an ancient TeleMagic thing with cryptic 3-letter field names. I doubt any agent, no matter how clever, will know that NM1 is first name, NM2 is last name, and US7 is e-mail. And Adam pointed out that there could be a clash with a field called "name" that has nothing to do with the user's name. So I maintain that an AUTOVALUE attribute is important, but there's no reason the browser/agent couldn't do a fallback match on the NAME attribute if the AUTOVALUE attribute isn't present. The automatic fill in process would then at least partially work on most existing forms. It does make sense to try to fill in other form elements such as selections, checkboxes, etc. I was trying to keep things simple, but it's probably better to define something that's comprehensive. Therefore, the AUTOVALUE attribute could be allowed on INPUT types of TEXT, PASSWORD(??), CHECKBOX, RADIO, SCRIBBLE, IMAGE, and on the OPTION and SELECT elements (in addition to TEXTAREA). At this point, "autovalue" starts to lose it's meaning, so perhaps the already defined ID attribute (or even CLASS) could be used, as long as this doesn't warp its intended usage. Because of the immense variety of data requested by forms, trying to define a reasonable set of name tokens as part of HTML may be doomed to failure. As Scott suggested, "...it would be safer to provide a base capability in the form of a set of defined names. A user agent would still be free to implement a learning/guessing scheme to augment that set." I believe we can kill two birds with one attribute: we can leave it completely open-ended for custom or "proprietary" field identifiers, but also define a recommended set of identifiers. Apple succeeded in a similar task by creating an open Apple Event mechanism but also defining (and letting the developer community define) additional standard "suites" of events. It would still be nice to have HTML 3.0 include a minimal set of predefined name tokens to cover the most commonly requested information (such as first name, last name, and e-mail) that all but the lamest browsers could support, but beyond that we could informally (or maybe via RFC) define standard identifier suites such as identification (company, address, SSN, public key) payment (credit card, cybercash account), personal statistics (age, race, income), school registration, IRS forms (that would be a huge one!), etc. An online registry for keeping track of them would be handy. The browser/agent interface for keeping track of all these identifiers and their values would probably look something like the one for mapping MIME types to helper applications. Are there already any standards for identifying pieces of information in this manner? EDI? This is so easy to add to HTML that I see no reason not to. It's just one attribute for certain form elements, plus perhaps a few predefined tokens for the attribute. Browsers and other agents are free to support it however they like. And I can't think of any place more appropriate to implement the mechanism than in HTML. ________________________________________________________________ Jim Taylor <mailto:jhtaylor@videodiscovery.com> Director of Information Technology Videodiscovery, Inc. - Multimedia Education for Science and Math Seattle, WA, 206-285-5400, <http://www.videodiscovery.com/vdyweb>
Received on Saturday, 17 February 1996 20:29:39 UTC