Typos in type definition
Ickbinet opened this issue · comments
https://rwcbook.github.io/hal-forms/#_code_type_code
"Possible settings for the type value adn teh expected contents to be returned inthe are:"
Should be?:
"Possible settings for the type value and the expected contents to be returned in here are:"
It might also be a good chance to add a note on whether the list of possible values for type is exhaustive. That list is very close to HTML input types except checkbox, radio and file. Are other types generally supported, too?
update got reverted somehow. will fix
and, yes, we should state that "type" list is not exclusive. with a fallback for when client's don't recognize the value of "type"
Should we remove the sentence about type being an "enumerated attribute"? It's that one, that led me to assume exhaustiveness of the list given. Because, if arbitrary other types are allowed as well, there's no enumeration anymore, is there?
removing would be OK w/ me. AFAIK, the word's definition does not call for exhastiveness. but happy to improve clarity here.
As we're following concepts of HTML pretty closely I had assumed it was a reference to the concept of an enumerated attribute like this: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/4104110/what-are-enumerated-attributes-in-html
that's a very reasonable assumption. i agree that we should drop "enumerated". it's a small change for a big win.