On Sat, 1 Nov 2008, Erik Wilde wrote:
The benefit would be having more control over the construction of
the URI rather than just the query parameters. I could have a form
with two simple fields a and b and specify
http://test.org/customers/{a}/reports/{b}; as the action URI.
(In the interests of avoiding cross-posting, I have only sent this e-mail
to the whatwg list. The original e-mails were also crossposted to the IETF
URI list and the rest-discuss list.)
This might be a good time to bring the FAQ to people's attention -- it
covers what we ask people to go
FYI... I've put together a quick prototype example [1] of a html form
using a URI Template [2]. The processing of the template is performed
in the onsubmit event of the form.
- James
[1] http://www.snellspace.com/wp/?p=832
[2] http://www.snellspace.com/wp/?p=831
Ian Hickson wrote:
On Mon, 17
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
Oh well. Are you really believing this?
RFC2396 and RFC3986 define what a URI is. They do not and don't need
to say anything about things which aren't URIs.
It's been well known for some time that the URI and IRI RFCs do not
correctly or sufficiently describe the
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 12:16:17 +0100, Julian Reschke [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
For the record: I totally disagree. It's not the job of the URI and IRI
RFCs to describe how a user agent has to handle things that do not
conform to the RFC3986/3987 syntax.
Why not?
The HTML4 WG had this
Dnia 15-12-2007, So o godzinie 19:28 -0800, James M Snell pisze:
form template=http://example.org{-prefix|/|foo}?bar={bar}
method=POST
Foo: input name=foo type=input
Bar: input name=bar type=input
/form
Why is this prefix operator needed here?
What is wrong with the URL
It's just an example.
Here's another:
form template=http://www.google.com/search?{-join||q,num}
method=GET
input name=q type=text /
input name=num type=range step=1 min=5 max=100 value=5 /
/form
- James
Krzysztof Żelechowski wrote:
Dnia 15-12-2007, So o godzinie 19:28 -0800, James M
If a legacy browser comes across form template=... /, it would be no
different than if it came across a form element with no action
attribute; which means it would have the same impact as the html5 choice
to allow the accept attribute.
It should be possible for us to also do something like:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007, Julian Reschke wrote:
The HTML4 WG had this position about HTML as well. This position is
what makes interoperability suffer, browser vendors having to spend
lots of resources reverse engineering each other, and the resulting de
facto error handling being
On 17/12/2007, James M Snell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It should be possible for us to also do something like:
form action=http://example.org/form_processor;
template=http://example.org?{-join||a,b}
method=POST
input name=a type=text /
input name=b type=text /
On Dec 16, 2007, at 05:28, James M Snell wrote:
The gist of the idea (which I believe may have been brought up before
but I'm not certain) is to allow the use of a URI Template in place of
the form element action attribute, and to use form elements to provide
the replacement values, e.g.
form
On 16/12/2007, Henri Sivonen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 16, 2007, at 05:28, James M Snell wrote:
form template=http://example.org{-prefix|/|foo}?bar={bar}
method=POST
Foo: input name=foo type=input
Bar: input name=bar type=input
/form
What's the backward-compatibility
Henri Sivonen wrote:
On Dec 16, 2007, at 05:28, James M Snell wrote:
The gist of the idea (which I believe may have been brought up before
but I'm not certain) is to allow the use of a URI Template in place of
the form element action attribute, and to use form elements to provide
the
On 16 Dec 2007, at 14:12, Julian Reschke wrote:
Henri Sivonen wrote:
On Dec 16, 2007, at 05:28, James M Snell wrote:
The gist of the idea (which I believe may have been brought up
before
but I'm not certain) is to allow the use of a URI Template in
place of
the form element action
On Dec 16, 2007, at 14:21, Philip Taylor wrote:
But the original example had form template which would avoid that
conflict.
Oops. I missed that.
Would the processing model be that the template attribute overrides
the action attribute in template-aware UAs leaving it to the page
author
Geoffrey Sneddon wrote:
On Dec 16, 2007, at 05:28, James M Snell wrote:
The gist of the idea (which I believe may have been brought up before
but I'm not certain) is to allow the use of a URI Template in place of
the form element action attribute, and to use form elements to provide
the
Right. We avoid the issue by using a different attribute for the template.
- James
Julian Reschke wrote:
[snip]
That being said -- James suggested template instead of action anyway.
BR, Julian
On Dec 16, 2007, at 7:36 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
Geoffrey Sneddon wrote:
change their meaning, breaking the sites, specs be damned. If RFC
3986 defined what to do with non-conformant URIs, we wouldn't have
this issue.
Oh well. Are you really believing this?
RFC2396 and RFC3986
While I am certain some folks may not appreciate the departure from the
engaging and entertaining debate over video codecs, I wanted to offer a
minor feature suggestion [1] with regards to HTML5 forms and URI
Templates [2].
The gist of the idea (which I believe may have been brought up before
but
19 matches
Mail list logo
