Re: #16630: Support for HTML5 input types

2012-10-09 Thread Felipe Prenholato
If matters, +1. People can easily change from $('input[type=text]') to $('input[type=text],input[type=email]'), it's a easy, no pain change, with various benefits of HTML5 fields. I would only suggest that people can do something like number_field=IntegerField(html5=False) in form (at least in 1.

Re: #16630: Support for HTML5 input types

2012-10-01 Thread Stephen Burrows
Hey all - Last I heard, today was the last day for new features for 1.5. I was triaging tickets yesterday and ran this ticket. [1] The ticket looks fine, and it addresses the issues raised here. The only new issue (raised on the ticket) is that this change could break third-party javascript and

Re: #16630: Support for HTML5 input types

2011-12-29 Thread Mikhail Korobov
+1 for Paul's concerns. I think this at least should be opt-in. It can be also more or less implemented without custom widgets but using Gregor Müllegger's form-rendering branch (which is not merged but available as https://github.com/SmileyChris/django-forms app if I understand it properly) -

Re: #16630: Support for HTML5 input types

2011-12-28 Thread Jonas H.
On 12/28/2011 05:15 AM, poswald wrote: I have a concern regarding this.. A few times I have tried to integrate django-floppyforms which takes a similar approach to what the html5 widgets offer (input types are specified by default) and it often causes pain. The reason is that while browsers say t

Re: #16630: Support for HTML5 input types

2011-12-27 Thread poswald
I have a concern regarding this.. A few times I have tried to integrate django-floppyforms which takes a similar approach to what the html5 widgets offer (input types are specified by default) and it often causes pain. The reason is that while browsers say they support html5 input types sometimes t

Re: #16630: Support for HTML5 input types

2011-12-27 Thread Aymeric Augustin
On 27 déc. 2011, at 17:15, Jonas H. wrote: > This patch has been around for while now. I just updated the patch so it > applies cleanly against rev 17281. > > So, can we get this patch into trunk or is something missing? Hi Jonas, The patch looks pretty good, but it needs documentation: - in t