Changes between Initial Version and Version 1 of Ticket #32339
- Timestamp:
- Jan 12, 2021, 6:02:47 AM (4 years ago)
Legend:
- Unmodified
- Added
- Removed
- Modified
-
Ticket #32339 – Description
initial v1 27 27 == Proposed solution 28 28 29 I would recommend removing all three output styles. Even if their output can be tweaked to circumvent those issues, they make it too easy to do the wrong thing. They also discourage developers from using `<fieldset>` and `<legend>` to appropriately group related fields. Although this isn’t needed all the time, for larger forms it’s important for there to be clear sections. 29 I would recommend removing all three output styles. Even if their output can be tweaked to circumvent those issues, they make it too easy to do the wrong thing. They also discourage developers from using `<fieldset>` and `<legend>` to appropriately group related fields. Although this isn’t needed all the time, for larger forms it’s important for there to be clear sections. I think they also have an impact on how likely developers are to properly label fields as either required or optional where relevant – Django’s default output has no such labeling, so developers either have to remember to add a custom label for each field suffixed with `(required)`, or skip those output styles. 30 30 31 31 If Django wants to provide a shortcut to render whole forms, I think it should be based on `<div>` (optionally with a class name), so it still allows for layout niceties but works as expect for all users otherwise. I think the documentation should also be updated to cover why it’s also desirable to render fields individually so they can be grouped in sections.