On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 3:57 PM, Oliver Hunt <oli...@apple.com> wrote:
> The site doesn't rely on the UA providing a nice UI, but by setting these > attributes it allows a UA that *can* provide an enhanced user experience to > do so. For instance type=search does not have to do anything, but on UAs > that support it, it can maintain things like search history or whatnot. > > There is also the potential for these attributes to allow improved support > for accessibility or input methods. > Yes, I completely agree. In fact that's much of the point for things like tel (especially on mobile phones). On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 3:59 PM, Alex Russell <slightly...@google.com> wrote: > Lots of stuff on the web is best-effort, particularly when system > integration is the point. I'm not sure that saying "the experience > will be different" changes what semantics should be available to > authors in any way. I wasn't suggesting changing any semantics available to authors. I am fine with these types. My comments are narrowly directed at Anthony Ricaud's comment that "...email, url, tel ... are exposed but without new functionality. Before that, a simple test ... was sufficient to provide an alternative via Javascript if necessary. And it goes against the philosophy of testing the functionality instead of relying on browser sniffing." I am saying that there is nothing _wrong_ with the current WebKit implementations of email, url, tel, search. PK
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev