On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 08:05:54 +0100, Peter Kasting <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 11:01 PM, Jonas Sicking <[email protected]> wrote:
Would be great if you could provide a reason why you feel this way.
Did the previous messages in the thread not say enough reasons? Ian's
response was basically "then how would we solve use cases 1 and 2?" which
was why I was clarifying that I did not have an alternative solution, I
felt that they are cases we should not be trying to solve.
You wrote in that thread:
This seems like an attempt to make life slightly easier on webpage
authors by providing boilerplate UI if they don't want to write
anything. But I see that as a small benefit with significant edge
cases. Authors are already expected to supply the textual content inthe
page, the text in alerts, etc., so providing the text in the"validation
failed" UI doesn't seem that bad. The UA can still dothings like turn
fields red or add warning sign icons or something if itlikes.
Isn't the benefit rather big? I can just use <input type=email> on my page
and the user agent will take care of ensuring it is correct (on the client
side) and provide the appropriate messages to the user in case the user
made a mistake. Anything beyond that will require scripting which seems
overkill for e.g. blog comments.
I'm not too convinced with #2 though so exposing the message is probably
not needed. (And if the user agent can somehow provide a non-textual user
interface for the above that should be allowed too.)
--
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
