Re: [whatwg] HTMLForms: Implicit Submission with {display:none} button
On 22/02/12 00:35, Ian Hickson wrote: I've changed the spec to be clearer that CSS cannot be taken into account when determining the default. The default button is just always the first submit button in the form. What about the situation where there isn't a button? Implicit submission still seems to happen on forms which have just a single element, for example: http://www.boogdesign.com/examples/forms2/test-validate-1.html http://www.boogdesign.com/examples/forms2/test-validate-2.html These both trigger the form validation algorithm in Firefox, Opera Chrome if you just hit return. This form with two inputs doesn't trigger implicit submission: http://www.boogdesign.com/examples/forms2/test-validate-3.html But add a submit button and it does: http://www.boogdesign.com/examples/forms2/test-validate-4.html Because in 4.10.22.2 everything hinges on the 'default button' this behaviour doesn't seem to be covered. Is this intentional? Rob
Re: [whatwg] Three concerns regarding HTML5 form validation
On 26/09/2011 14:35, Anne van Kesteren wrote: On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 13:58:52 +0200, Matias matia...@gmail.com wrote: 1) Is there a reason why native form validation seems to be tied to the click of the submit button? ... What is the reason for wanting this? I think this is exactly what this StackOverflow user was asking for: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7548612 Basically he wants to trigger validation for each section of the form as the user goes along. Rob
Re: [whatwg] Three concerns regarding HTML5 form validation
On 28/09/11 19:59, Aryeh Gregor wrote: Basically he wants to trigger validation for each section of the form as the user goes along. Doesn't Firefox already behave this way natively? I don't think so but I'm happy to be corrected. How would it work, can you have a submit button per fieldset? Rob
Re: [whatwg] Microdata getItems()
On 09/08/11 20:48, Ian Hickson wrote: On Tue, 9 Aug 2011, Rob Crowther wrote: Correct. Browsers aren't expected to know about the vocabularies, let alone validate them. Thanks. I think this could be made more clear in the spec. However if I remove itemscope from the element the Opera beta implementation still returns it as a top level microdata item even though it is now invalid. Is this expected behaviour? No. Looks like this was me doing something stupid, Opera is indeed only returning the items with both itemscope and itemtype. Rob
[whatwg] Microdata getItems()
I just want to confirm that my understanding of this is correct: getItems() will return a NodeList of top level microdata items and this is irrespective of whether or not the items are actually valid in terms of their type? That is, it is the developer's responsibility to confirm that the vCard has an fn and an n before further processing? It makes sense to me because I don't expect the browser to be downloading random vocabularies off the internet to check these things, but it doesn't seem to be explicitly referenced in the spec. There is a section which talks about de-referencing says that the browser can dereference the URL to provide item specific processing, but only if the applicable specification allows it. One further question - if an itemtype attribute is present there must also be an itemscope. However if I remove itemscope from the element the Opera beta implementation still returns it as a top level microdata item even though it is now invalid. Is this expected behaviour? Rob
[whatwg] Comparing mouseover/mouseout, mouseenter/mouseleave and dragenter/dragleave
In Firefox 4 dragenter/dragleave are fired like mouseover/mouseout events - when you enter or leave the elements irrespective of whether the mouse pointer is entering a child element or leaving the element altogether. So I have two questions: 1. Is Firefox 4 doing the correct thing? 2. If it is doing the correct thing, isn't it a bit confusing that dragenter doesn't behave like mouseenter but like mouseover and dragleave doesn't behave like mouseleave but mouseout? The phrase Fire a DND event named dragenter at the immediate user selection seems to indicate Firefox is correct, but it wasn't the behaviour I was expecting when I tried it for the first time. Rob
Re: [whatwg] Proposed simplification to Microdata
On 29/05/11 20:20, Guha wrote: Thank you. Can you point me at the portion of the HTML 5 spec that allows link and meta to be used in the body? It says it where the link and meta elements are defined: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/semantics.html#the-link-element Contexts in which this element can be used: Where metadata content is expected. In a noscript element that is a child of a head element. If the itemprop attribute is present: where phrasing content is expected. http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/semantics.html#the-meta-element Contexts in which this element can be used: If the charset attribute is present, or if the element's http-equiv attribute is in the Encoding declaration state: in a head element. If the http-equiv attribute is present but not in the Encoding declaration state: in a head element. If the http-equiv attribute is present but not in the Encoding declaration state: in a noscript element that is a child of a head element. If the name attribute is present: where metadata content is expected. If the itemprop attribute is present: where metadata content is expected. If the itemprop attribute is present: where phrasing content is expected. Phrasing content is the text of the document: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/content-models.html#phrasing-content Rob
Re: [whatwg] microformats, microdata, and custom data attributes
Justin Karneges wrote: Given that it is meant primarily as a data exchange protocol, explicit is better, so I'm preferring Microdata instead of Microformats here. The strength of the Microformats community is in helping to define the vocabulary, that's a different issue from the format you'll use to represent it. Rob
Re: [whatwg] Cache Manifest: why have FALLBACK?
Ilkka Huotari wrote: Benefits: Making things simpler, easier for the programmer to understand. Faster to learn, less bugs, better code? My initial thought is that including offline resources in a section entitled NETWORK will lead to more confusion among developers rather than less. Rob
Re: [whatwg] Make f...@bar.com, a valid email address list
Anne van Kesteren wrote: I do not really get why it being comma-separated is not just the submission format. The UI could be quite different. E.g. on the iPhone email client it is more like an inline list. I think the specification is simply not abstract enough here, as it is for the other controls. Is there ever likely to be a DOM API for multiple, eg. offering the value as an array rather than as a string? If there was going to be then I could see a case for clearing up how trailing commas should be dealt outside of a submission format. Rob
Re: [whatwg] Cache manifests and cross-origin resources
Anne van Kesteren wrote: With the current model makingyourinterwebsboring.com can define a cache manifest and basically point to a lot of external news sites. When any of those sites is then fetched directly they would be taken from the cache. That does not seem optimal. Seems handy if you want to cache a load of external news sites for offline viewing. Rob
Re: [whatwg] Video Tag Proposal
Eoin Kilfeather wrote: Forgive my ignorance, I Am Not A Lawyer, Neither am I.. In fact a court would surely allow a reasonable time for transition. If it's got as far as a court then it probably already cost you a significant chunk of money. Rob
Re: [whatwg] Adding mouseenter and mouseleave events
Gareth Hay wrote: Maybe your use case requires something different, but I can't imagine that scenario. I ran across this issue the other day, and found this explanation / example which may help clarify the issues people encounter: http://dynamic-tools.net/toolbox/isMouseLeaveOrEnter/ Rob
