Re: [whatwg] [WF2] 6.2. Seeding a form with initial values -- contradiction in algorithm step 5

[Thomas Broyer]

2007/9/10, Weston Ruter:
> I believe there is a contradiction in step 5 of the algorithm defined by Web
> Forms 2.0 section 6.2 "Seeding a form with initial values" [1]. In the last
> clause of the second paragraph it states that all radio buttons and
> checkboxes must be skipped over if they "have the exact name given but have
> a value that is not exactly the same as the contents of the field element."
> However, four paragraphs later it states that checkboxes (and I suppose
> radio buttons as well) may be unchecked by means of an empty field element
> with a matching name attribute:
>
> > The only values that would have an effect in this example
> > are "", which would uncheck the checkbox, and "green",
> > which would check the checkbox.
>
> Obviously the non-empty value of an input element (such as "green") is not
> exactly the same as the contents of an *empty* field element that has a
> matching name.
>
> Any thoughts?

Isn't it related to the paragraph just above: "if it is a
multiple-valued control but it is the first time the control has been
identified by a field element in this data file that was not ignored,
then it is set to the given value (the contents of the field element),
removing any previous values" where "a multiple-valued control is one
that can generate more than one value on submission"? and to the end
of the second paragraph of ths same fifth step: "walking the list of
form controls associated with the form until one is found that has a
name exactly equal to the name given in the field element's name
attribute, skipping as many such matches as is specified in the index
attribute"?

I must concede that the example is not clear at all about that ""
value and when and in which conditions it affects the checkbox.

-- 
Thomas Broyer

[whatwg] Fwd: [WF2] 6.2. Seeding a form with initial values -- contradiction in algorithm step 5

[Weston Ruter]

CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Forwarding to [EMAIL PROTECTED] since no discussion happening on this in
HTML WG.

-- Forwarded message --
From: Weston Ruter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sep 10, 2007 1:23 PM
Subject: [WF2] 6.2. Seeding a form with initial values -- contradiction in
algorithm step 5
To: HTML WG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

I believe there is a contradiction in step 5 of the algorithm defined by Web
Forms 2.0 section 6.2 "Seeding a form with initial values" [1]. In the last
clause of the second paragraph it states that all radio buttons and
checkboxes must be skipped over if they "have the exact name given but have
a value that is not exactly the same as the contents of the field element."
However, four paragraphs later it states that checkboxes (and I suppose
radio buttons as well) may be unchecked by means of an empty field element
with a matching name attribute:

> The only values that would have an effect in this example
> are "", which would uncheck the checkbox, and "green",
> which would check the checkbox.

Obviously the non-empty value of an input element (such as "green") is not
exactly the same as the contents of an *empty* field element that has a
matching name. 

Any thoughts?
Weston

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/web-forms-2/#seeding

Re: [whatwg] successful form controls

[Křištof Želechovski]

I am sorry, it is a misunderstanding.  I had the state of the radio button
when it is pressed, not the attribute name in mind.  The attribute may be
called "ratubled", "hodagred", "grabuntious" or whatever; it does not
influence the fact that a pressed radio button is not checked.
In other words, while it is possible that the value of the attribute named
"checked" of a radio button may be "true", it does not make it checked
indeed.
Cheers
Chris

-Original Message-
From: Simon Pieters [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 6:47 PM
To: Křištof Želechovski; 'Jon Barnett'
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Garrett Smith'
Subject: Re: [whatwg] successful form controls

On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 18:26:19 +0200, Křištof Želechovski  
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> What makes you think that a radio button can be checked?  My trust in  
> your
> statement will be inversely proportional to its self-confidence.  Please  
> use
> some supporting arguments instead of bold assurances.

Perhaps you could check the specs or try it in some browser? :-)

HTML4:

http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/interact/forms.html#adef-checked

DOM2 HTML:

http://www.w3.org/TR/DOM-Level-2-HTML/html.html#ID-30233917

Try it:

 
http://software.hixie.ch/utilities/js/live-dom-viewer/?%3C!DOCTYPE%20html%3E
%0D%0A%3Cp%3EUnchecked%20(default)%3A%20%3Cinput%20type%3Dradio%3E%0D%0A%3Cp
%3EChecked%20with%20attribute%3A%20%3Cinput%20type%3Dradio%20checked%3E%0D%0
A%3Cp%3EChecked%20with%20script%3A%20%3Cinput%20type%3Dradio%20name%3Dfoo%3E
%0D%0A%3Cscript%3E%20foo.checked%20%3D%20true%20%3C%2Fscript%3E

-- 
Simon Pieters

Re: [whatwg] successful form controls

[Simon Pieters]

On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 18:26:19 +0200, Křištof Želechovski  
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


What makes you think that a radio button can be checked?  My trust in  
your
statement will be inversely proportional to its self-confidence.  Please  
use

some supporting arguments instead of bold assurances.


Perhaps you could check the specs or try it in some browser? :-)

HTML4:

   http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/interact/forms.html#adef-checked

DOM2 HTML:

   http://www.w3.org/TR/DOM-Level-2-HTML/html.html#ID-30233917

Try it:

   
http://software.hixie.ch/utilities/js/live-dom-viewer/?%3C!DOCTYPE%20html%3E%0D%0A%3Cp%3EUnchecked%20(default)%3A%20%3Cinput%20type%3Dradio%3E%0D%0A%3Cp%3EChecked%20with%20attribute%3A%20%3Cinput%20type%3Dradio%20checked%3E%0D%0A%3Cp%3EChecked%20with%20script%3A%20%3Cinput%20type%3Dradio%20name%3Dfoo%3E%0D%0A%3Cscript%3E%20foo.checked%20%3D%20true%20%3C%2Fscript%3E

--
Simon Pieters

Re: [whatwg] successful form controls

[Křištof Želechovski]

What makes you think that a radio button can be checked?  My trust in your
statement will be inversely proportional to its self-confidence.  Please use
some supporting arguments instead of bold assurances.

Chris

-Original Message-
From: Jon Barnett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 11:18 PM
To: Kristof Zelechovski
Cc: Garrett Smith; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [whatwg] successful form controls

On 9/15/07, Kristof Zelechovski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1. Radio buttons are never checked so this sentence means that they are
> never successful.

The selected radio button in a group is "checked" - even thought it
doesn't look like a checkmark, yes, it's "checked".

[whatwg] Example for the Spec: Pullquotes using and

[Lachlan Hunt]

Hi,
  As discussed in IRC today, the spec should include an example of 
marking up pullquotes using aside and blockquote.



  blah blah blah...

  

  pullquote...

  

  blah blah blah...


--
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/