This response is an excellent example of how, when stating a case or making an argument on HN, you should provide as little concrete information as possible and avoid a specific example if possible.
The point they were making was that for many small single-purpose sites the interactivity needs are low but for various technical or social reasons may be higher than exposed with pure html/css, and htmx meets those needs adequately without adding much additional complexity.
But they used forms as an example, and now you're deep in the nitpicky weeds about the semantics and capabilities of html forms, having missed the point and left it in a ditch miles ago.
Not really, I was directly refuting their bigger point, which was that htmx is not in an uncanny valley between basic HTML and real Javascript because there are all kinds of simple use cases where htmx is ideal. They then listed off use cases that in fact do not require htmx :-)
If you're going to make a point like that via examples, they should be (in aggregate) useful examples that make your point!
Even setting aside that examples made up basically that poster's entire point, the reason people provide examples even for more developed argumernts is because concrete evidence is important to persuasiveness (not because they are being charitable). When someone tries multiple examples and none prove their point, it's perfectly valid to point that out.
The point they were making was that for many small single-purpose sites the interactivity needs are low but for various technical or social reasons may be higher than exposed with pure html/css, and htmx meets those needs adequately without adding much additional complexity.
But they used forms as an example, and now you're deep in the nitpicky weeds about the semantics and capabilities of html forms, having missed the point and left it in a ditch miles ago.