[RFC] HTML5 input types for form fields

[callumacrae]

As long as "legacy" browsers still work with the new field types, I don't see much downside to this.

They fall back to text (much like "eahobn" inputs), so would be fine.

[Pony99CA]

...(much like "eahobn" inputs)....

The what? Google couldn't even find "eahobn". I'm guessing that means the HTML 4.x standard INPUT tag types, but those are:

button
checkbox
file
hidden
image
password
radio
reset
submit
text

I could guess "Edit/Area/Hidden/Option/Button" but still don't get the "n".

Anyway, I presume that phpBB would keep the server validation for those fields to cope with those legacy browsers that didn't do client-side validation.

Steve

[keith10456]

+1 (for HTML5 input types for form fields)

[callumacrae]

...(much like "eahobn" inputs)....

The what? Google couldn't even find "eahobn". I'm guessing that means the HTML 4.x standard INPUT tag types, but those are:

button
checkbox
file
hidden
image
password
radio
reset
submit
text

I could guess "Edit/Area/Hidden/Option/Button" but still don't get the "n".

Anyway, I presume that phpBB would keep the server validation for those fields to cope with those legacy browsers that didn't do client-side validation.

Steve

I'm glad it doesn't exist, that would have really screwed up my point!

My point was that the HTML input was designed in such a way to be backwards compatible - if the input type is not recognised, it falls back to text.

http://jsfiddle.net/TNgnx/

[Senky]

Developing PR (with confirmation of Vinny) for this ticket, I found out that all includes/acp/acp_* files use build_cfg_template() from adm/index.php, not from includes/functions_acp.php. Can someone explain it to me? How I am going to treat that? Am I to add new input types into both locations of the function, or change all includes/acp/acp_* files not to use index.php, but functions_acp.php file?

EDIT: sorry, I combined directories of 3.0 and 3.1 and did not realise 3.1 does not have any function in adm/index.php. No problems from now.

[Pony99CA]

I'm glad it doesn't exist, that would have really screwed up my point!

Ah, got it. I thought that you were using "eahobn" as an abbreviation, but you were just using it as a non-existent input type.

Steve

[Vinny]

Senky and me are working on this change. You can follow our progress in this branch.

We appreciate any feedback.

[keith10456]

Senky and me are working on this change. You can follow our progress in this branch.

We appreciate any feedback.

[Michaelo]

FYI Most major browsers with the exception of IE9 and Safari currently support client side form validation... IE 10 also supports it...

[callumacrae]

FYI Most major browsers with the exception of IE9 and Safari currently support client side form validation... IE 10 also supports it...

What do you mean by client-side form validation? It's possible to validate the contents of a form in any browser… so I'm assuming that that isn't what you meant.