Re: [whatwg] input type=url allow URLs without http:// prefix
On Sun, 12 Jul 2009, Bruce Lawson wrote: The eleventy squillion WordPress sites out there that allow comments ask for your web page address as well as name and email. The method of entering a URL does not require the http:// prefix; just beginning the URL with www is accepted. As it's very common for people to drop the http:// prefix on advertising, business cards etc (and who amongst us reads out the prefix when reading a URL on the phone?) I'd like to suggest that input type=url allows the http:// prefix to be optional on input and, if ommitted, be assumed when parsing. Assuming you mean user input, it already is allowed to be optional; the spec doesn't prevent the user agent from doing whatever they want in terms of fixups. On Mon, 13 Jul 2009, Ian Pouncey wrote: On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 3:48 PM, Kornel Lesinskikor...@geekhood.net wrote: On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 09:46:19 +0100, Bruce Lawson bru...@opera.com wrote: As it's very common for people to drop the http:// prefix on advertising, business cards etc (and who amongst us reads out the prefix when reading a URL on the phone?) I'd like to suggest that input type=url allows the http:// prefix to be optional on input and, if ommitted, be assumed when parsing. The spec explicitly allows that actual value seen and edited by the user in the interface is different from DOM value of the input, so browsers are free to prepend http:// automatically (and IMHO should � DSK-253195). To make this less ambiguous I would prefer that we talk about making it optional to specify a protocol or scheme name (personal preference for protocol) rather than http:// specifically. While http will be the most common protocol by far it is not the only possibility. The scheme is not optional in the submission format. I have no problems with the idea though, I just think there needs to be a mechanism for highlighting the change to the user rather than this being hidden in the DOM. That's a UI issue, which is more or less out of scope of the spec. On Mon, 13 Jul 2009, Bruce Lawson wrote: Excellent. And, while I don't doubt you at all, I'm abashed that I missed that nuance, especially as it'#s explicitly allowed? Where would I find that in the spec? On Mon, 13 Jul 2009, Kornel wrote: The URL state section says that value in DOM may be different from value in the user interface: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/forms.html#url-state The example difference given in the spec is URL-escaping, but in my understanding, it should allow to prepending of protocol as well (I admit that last bit is not stated explicitly). Right. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A/, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Re: [whatwg] input type=url allow URLs without http:// prefix
On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 3:48 PM, Kornel Lesinskikor...@geekhood.net wrote: On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 09:46:19 +0100, Bruce Lawson bru...@opera.com wrote: As it's very common for people to drop the http:// prefix on advertising, business cards etc (and who amongst us reads out the prefix when reading a URL on the phone?) I'd like to suggest that input type=url allows the http:// prefix to be optional on input and, if ommitted, be assumed when parsing. The spec explicitly allows that actual value seen and edited by the user in the interface is different from DOM value of the input, so browsers are free to prepend http:// automatically (and IMHO should – DSK-253195). To make this less ambiguous I would prefer that we talk about making it optional to specify a protocol or scheme name (personal preference for protocol) rather than http:// specifically. While http will be the most common protocol by far it is not the only possibility. I'm wary of automagically prepending values if it is not clear what has been added by the user agent compared to what has been added by the user. Thoughts of end users complaining that the information the site owner has on record is not what was entered without a clear log of the change spring to mind. Might sound far-fetched but I'm guessing most of us have heard weirder complaints. I have no problems with the idea though, I just think there needs to be a mechanism for highlighting the change to the user rather than this being hidden in the DOM. Regards, Ian Pouncey.
Re: [whatwg] input type=url allow URLs without http:// prefix
On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 15:48:51 +0100, Kornel Lesinski kor...@geekhood.net wrote: On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 09:46:19 +0100, Bruce Lawson bru...@opera.com wrote: I'd like to suggest that input type=url allows the http:// prefix to be optional on input and, if ommitted, be assumed when parsing. The spec explicitly allows that actual value seen and edited by the user in the interface is different from DOM value of the input, so browsers are free to prepend http:// automatically (and IMHO should – DSK-253195). Excellent. And, while I don't doubt you at all, I'm abashed that I missed that nuance, especially as it'#s explicitly allowed? Where would I find that in the spec? -- Hang loose and stay groovy, Bruce Lawson Web Evangelist www.opera.com (work) www.brucelawson.co.uk (personal)
Re: [whatwg] input type=url allow URLs without http:// prefix
On 13 Jul 2009, at 08:52, Bruce Lawson wrote: I'd like to suggest that input type=url allows the http:// prefix to be optional on input and, if ommitted, be assumed when parsing. The spec explicitly allows that actual value seen and edited by the user in the interface is different from DOM value of the input, so browsers are free to prepend http:// automatically (and IMHO should – DSK-253195). Excellent. And, while I don't doubt you at all, I'm abashed that I missed that nuance, especially as it'#s explicitly allowed? Where would I find that in the spec? The URL state section says that value in DOM may be different from value in the user interface: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/forms.html#url-state The example difference given in the spec is URL-escaping, but in my understanding, it should allow to prepending of protocol as well (I admit that last bit is not stated explicitly). -- regards, Kornel
Re: [whatwg] input type=url allow URLs without http:// prefix
On 12 Jul 2009, at 10:46, Bruce Lawson wrote: The eleventy squillion WordPress sites out there that allow comments ask for your web page address as well as name and email. The method of entering a URL does not require the http:// prefix; just beginning the URL with www is accepted. As it's very common for people to drop the http:// prefix on advertising, business cards etc (and who amongst us reads out the prefix when reading a URL on the phone?) I'd like to suggest that input type=url allows the http:// prefix to be optional on input and, if ommitted, be assumed when parsing. How do we tell apart foo.html (a relative URL) and example.com (a host name)? -- Geoffrey Sneddon http://gsnedders.com/
Re: [whatwg] input type=url allow URLs without http:// prefix
On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 10:15:50 +0100, Geoffrey Sneddon foolist...@googlemail.com wrote: How do we tell apart foo.html (a relative URL) and example.com (a host name)? good point. It never occurred to me that relative URLs would be entered. What's the use case? -- Hang loose and stay groovy, Bruce Lawson Web Evangelist www.opera.com (work) www.brucelawson.co.uk (personal)
Re: [whatwg] input type=url allow URLs without http:// prefix
On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 09:46:19 +0100, Bruce Lawson bru...@opera.com wrote: As it's very common for people to drop the http:// prefix on advertising, business cards etc (and who amongst us reads out the prefix when reading a URL on the phone?) I'd like to suggest that input type=url allows the http:// prefix to be optional on input and, if ommitted, be assumed when parsing. The spec explicitly allows that actual value seen and edited by the user in the interface is different from DOM value of the input, so browsers are free to prepend http:// automatically (and IMHO should – DSK-253195). -- regards, Kornel Lesinski
