On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 9:43 AM, Ian Hickson <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, 29 Jul 2011, Jonas Sicking wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 6:07 PM, Ian Hickson <[email protected]> wrote: >> > On Mon, 2 May 2011, Jonas Sicking wrote: >> >> On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 3:36 PM, Ian Hickson <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > <select> in a <datalist> is completely ignored for form submission. In >> >> > fact, any form element at all in <datalist> is ignored for form >> >> > submission. See the "construct the form data set" algorithm: >> >> > >> >> > http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/complete.html#constructing-the-form-data-set >> >> > >> >> > It's so that you can do things like: >> >> > >> >> > <input ... list=options> >> >> > <datalist id=options> >> >> > <select ...> >> >> > <option>...</option> >> >> > </select> >> >> > ...maybe other form controls here... >> >> > </datalist> >> >> > >> >> > Basically everything in the <datalist> except the <option> elements is >> >> > for fallback in legacy UAs and is ignored in new UAs. >> >> >> >> Couldn't this be accomplished using a few lines of javascript? >> > >> > Not when scripts are disabled, no. >> >> The number of cases when a site can use this solution to get an >> acceptable UI *and* care about supporting users with scripts disabled >> *and* is planning to roll out support within the timeframe when there's >> some support for HTML5 forms, but not enough to rely on it, is extremely >> small. > > That's possible. The entire Web Forms 2 feature set is designed with this > kind of fallback in mind, though. > > >> My experience is that it's much more likely that people will use other >> solutions until there is wide enough browser support to reliably use it, >> and then use javascript as a fallback and not care about users with JS >> disabled. And that goes even if we add this feature or not. > > If that's the case, we should probably rethink the entire design of the > WF2 features, because maybe there's better ways to do things.
I'd be very interested to hear how we would have designed things differently under those constraints. > Looking specifically at <datagrid>'s ability to fall back to <select>, I > agree that it's not necessarily doing to be widely used, but given that > it's so simple to support and provides such a clean way to do fallback, I > really don't see the harm in supporting it. I haven't looked at <datagrid> yet, so I can't comment. / Jonas
