From renatho.rosa at grifotecnologia.com.br  Fri Oct 22 15:26:27 2010
From: renatho.rosa at grifotecnologia.com.br (Renatho Rosa)
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 20:26:27 -0200
Subject: [html5] List types
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=DAhfGmwVs6B_pt5o-OW=Vnt30+tbkaagTB+dH@mail.gmail.com>

Hello,

I've some discussions with my team.
The first discussion was the correct use of the dl (definition list). Before
the HTML5 the dl tag was a "definition list" n' the specification said that
we should use in cases of dictionary data (Not usual for "Name: Jack", but
usual for "Name: Nominal ID for a person").
Now, in the new specification, the dl is "description list" and de
definition is: "Name-value groups may be terms and definitions, metadata
topics and values, questions and answers, or any other groups of name-value
data.". So it's not more a discussion =)

But other discussion is "ol" or "ul" for forms. What's more correct?
Here a example by alistapart with use of "ol":
http://www.alistapart.com/articles/prettyaccessibleforms/

In HTML5 spec says: "The
ol<http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec-author-view/grouping-content.html#the-ol-element>element
represents <http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/rendering.html#represents> a list
of items, where the items have been intentionally ordered, such that
changing the order would change the meaning of the document."

I think that the correct is use ul, because, for example, in a form with
"name" n' "age" if we change the order of fields, the meaning is the same.

What do you know?

[]'s
--
Renatho De Carli Rosa

Grifo
Desenvolvimento Client-side com intelig?ncia.

Av. Loureiro da Silva, 2001 / 917
Porto Alegre, RS

renathoc at hotmail.com (MSN)
renatho.rosa at grifotecnologia.com.br (Gtalk)
renathoc (Skype)

www.grifotecnologia.com.br
+55 51 3084.7760
+55 51 9996.7650
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/help-whatwg.org/attachments/20101022/b3535688/attachment.htm>

From jukka.k.korpela at kolumbus.fi  Sat Oct 23 03:34:17 2010
From: jukka.k.korpela at kolumbus.fi (Jukka K. Korpela)
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 13:34:17 +0300
Subject: [html5] List types
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=DAhfGmwVs6B_pt5o-OW=Vnt30+tbkaagTB+dH@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTi=DAhfGmwVs6B_pt5o-OW=Vnt30+tbkaagTB+dH@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2FAB65DA11F04164A2C1FC024E873B70@JukanPC>

Renatho Rosa wrote:

> Before the HTML5 the dl tag was a "definition list"

In practice, the dl element has been used for a wide range of purposes, 
defeating the original idea. Semantic markup isn't very useful if most pages 
use elements in a manner that conflicts with the defined semantics. For 
example, if a search engine treated dd as enclosing a term being defined, 
for the purposes of searching for definitions (or excluding defining 
occurrences from results), it would not find many definitions, and it would 
misclassify things.

HTML 4 reflects this in its watered-down, pretty useless "definition" of dl, 
first calling it a definition list, then saying that dd gives a 
_description_ (not definition), and ending this with the messy statement
"Another application of DL, for example, is for marking up dialogues, with 
each DT naming a speaker, and each DD containing his or her words." (Oddly 
enough, the HTML5 draft explicitly refutes such an idea, beating a dead 
horse, I would say. If someone has used dl for such a purpose, why should we 
tell him it's wrong?)

> Now, in the new specification,

You misspelled "current draft".

> the dl is "description list" and de
> definition is: "Name-value groups may be terms and definitions,
> metadata
> topics and values, questions and answers, or any other groups of
> name-value
> data.". So it's not more a discussion =)

Working drafts are discussion documents, though people might, at their own 
risk, also use them in authoring and in implementing software.

In practice, the dl element has become a layout tool for certain types of 
data. This can hardly be changed any more. It needs to be incorporated as a 
legacy element, hopefully with no misleading statements about its being a 
definition list. "Description list" is more appropriate than the old phrase 
"definition list", but the word "term" is still misleading in the current 
formulation of HTML5. Maybe dl could be called "variable list"; cf. to 
http://oreilly.com/oreilly/author/stylesheet.html (which presents a 
definition list as an example of a variable list). It would perhaps best be 
characterized as a list of (typically short) items with (typically longer) 
other kinds of items associated with them. Logically, it's more or less the 
equivalent of a two-column table.

Markup for definitions would be something completely different. It's a very 
complicated issue, much more
complicated than the new semantic elements that have been proposed in the 
HTML5 draft, so it should probably wait for HTML 6, or at least HTML5.1.

> But other discussion is "ol" or "ul" for forms. What's more correct?

Since the early days, ol has been a numbered list and ul has been a bulleted 
list. The difference is in rendering and could be expressed in CSS. The 
logical move would be to introduce the <list> element and deprecate (using 
whatever is politically correct way of deprecating things this week) <ul> 
and <ol>, but this is hardly a place for being logical. It's pretty harmless 
that authors select <ul> or <ol> according to the desired default rendering.

> Here a example by alistapart with use of "ol":
> http://www.alistapart.com/articles/prettyaccessibleforms/

It's pretty nonsensical. Putting form fields into a numbered list doesn't 
help anyone. A sequence of form fields with associated labels constitutes a 
two-column table more than anything else. (There's little point in making it 
a dl element, since the default rendering would be rather unsuitable.)

> In HTML5 spec

The current W3C draft for HTML5.

> says: "The
> ol<http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec-author-view/grouping-content.html#the-ol-element>element
> represents <http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/rendering.html#represents> a
> list
> of items, where the items have been intentionally ordered, such that
> changing the order would change the meaning of the document."

That's just a misguided attempt at retrofitting "semantics" into an age-old 
construct that simply corresponds to the idea of a numbered list. The 
_dangerous_ idea is the obvious implication, explicitly written out in the 
HTML5 draft, that in a ul element, the order is _not_ significant. This is 
just absurd. Millions of people have created ul elements without meaning 
that someone else, or maybe a browser, could arbitrarily reorder the items.

The essential difference is that in an ol element, the numbers explicitly 
indicate an order. Whether the order itself is essential cannot be deduced 
from the markup. The author may have chosen to use ol e.g. just because the 
items will then be automatically numbered, so that they can more easily be 
referred to, or maybe just to indicate the number of items in a natural way.

-- 
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/ 


From ricardobeat at gmail.com  Mon Oct 25 07:28:23 2010
From: ricardobeat at gmail.com (Ricardo Tomasi)
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 12:28:23 -0200
Subject: [html5] List types
Message-ID: <AANLkTikb+tmVhSU-cwX031_8q1pDt9a8JYP=u0qrLTbN@mail.gmail.com>

Jukka K. Korpela wrote:

>* Before the HTML5 the dl tag was a "definition list"*
> In practice, the dl element has been used for a wide range of purposes,
> defeating the original idea.

> If someone has used dl for such a purpose, why should we
> tell him it's wrong?)

AFAIK Googlebot and others already look into definition lists for
"definitions" (as in define:something search queries). Sometimes you
can spot misused dl tags in there, when you get some random/specific
data as definition text.

>* But other discussion is "ol" or "ul" for forms. What's more correct?*
> Since the early days, ol has been a numbered list and ul has been a bulleted
> list. The difference is in rendering and could be expressed in CSS.

The ol and ul tags have had their semantic meaning (ordered list,
unordered list) since at least 1999, that's more than a decade. You
can turn divs into a bulleted list using CSS.

> (...) It's pretty harmless
> that authors select <ul> or <ol> according to the desired default rendering.

I don't see selecting elements according to a desired default
rendering as recommended practice by any of the standards bodies.

> It's pretty nonsensical. Putting form fields into a numbered list doesn't
> help anyone. A sequence of form fields with associated labels constitutes a
> two-column table more than anything else. (There's little point in making it
> a dl element, since the default rendering would be rather unsuitable.)

Again, rendering is out of scope for this matter.

Tables are for tabular data. In addition, a label already defines it
relationship to an input by itself (the for attribute), so by putting
form controls in a table you're making a redundant association between
those elements. What would be a suitable header for the labels column?
"Labels"?

Putting form controls in a list helps screen-reader users, by letting
them know the total number of inputs/steps in the form, and allowing
them to navigate easily. It also makes sense to consider label/input
pairs as separate pieces. As a bonus, it makes for easy styling.

> (...) The author may have chosen to use ol e.g. just because the
> items will then be automatically numbered, so that they can more easily be
> referred to, or maybe just to indicate the number of items in a natural way.

An author may have chosen to use a fieldset+legend for his header
titles because it has a fancy border, but I fail to see how this is
relevant for the matter of semantics, or accessibility. Should we just
ignore the specification and do whatever we wish? Again, the semantics
for ul and ol elements has been established for more than a decade.

--

ricardo
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/help-whatwg.org/attachments/20101025/f440c236/attachment.htm>

From herman at agrabush.com  Mon Oct 25 15:12:36 2010
From: herman at agrabush.com (Herman Hassel)
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 00:12:36 +0200
Subject: [html5] List Types
In-Reply-To: <mailman.0.1287860561.4921.help-whatwg.org@lists.whatwg.org>
References: <mailman.0.1287860561.4921.help-whatwg.org@lists.whatwg.org>
Message-ID: <4CC600D4.40808@agrabush.com>

On 23.10.2010 21:02, help-request at lists.whatwg.org wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I've some discussions with my team.
> The first discussion was the correct use of the dl (definition list). 
> Before the HTML5 the dl tag was a "definition list" n' the 
> specification said that we should use in cases of dictionary data (Not 
> usual for "Name: Jack", but usual for "Name: Nominal ID for a person").
> Now, in the new specification, the dl is "description list" and de 
> definition is: "Name-value groups may be terms and definitions, 
> metadata topics and values, questions and answers, or any other groups 
> of name-value data.". So it's not more a discussion =)
>
> But other discussion is "ol" or "ul" for forms. What's more correct?
> Here a example by alistapart with use of "ol": 
> http://www.alistapart.com/articles/prettyaccessibleforms/
>
> In HTML5 spec says: "The |ol 
> <http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec-author-view/grouping-content.html#the-ol-element>| 
> element represents 
> <http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/rendering.html#represents> a list of 
> items, where the items have been intentionally ordered, such that 
> changing the order would change the meaning of the document."
>
> I think that the correct is use ul, because, for example, in a form 
> with "name" n' "age" if we change the order of fields, the meaning is 
> the same.
>
> What do you know?
>
> []'s
> --
> Renatho De Carli Rosa
>
> Grifo
> Desenvolvimento Client-side com intelig?ncia.
>
> Av. Loureiro da Silva, 2001 / 917
> Porto Alegre, RS
>
> renathoc at hotmail.com <mailto:renathoc at hotmail.com> (MSN)
> renatho.rosa at grifotecnologia.com.br 
> <mailto:renatho.rosa at grifotecnologia.com.br> (Gtalk)
> renathoc (Skype)
>
> www.grifotecnologia.com.br <http://www.grifotecnologia.com.br>
> +55 51 3084.7760
> +55 51 9996.7650
Hi

We had the same heated debate a few months ago when it came to lists and 
forms. We concluded that using any list element to keep the label and 
input elements apart was redundant (although it does look kinda cool). 
The list element just didn't provide anything of semantic value to the 
form. We still needed to group each label and input for styling needs, 
hence we decided upon using div elements.

A simplistic example of how we do forms now:

<form>
<fileset>
<legend>Personal Info</legend>
<div>
<label for="full_name">Full Name:</label>
<input name="full_name" type="text" />
</div>
<div>
<label for="full_address">Full Address</label>
<input name="full_address" type="text" />
</div>
</fieldset>
<fieldset>
<legend>Billing</legend>
<!-- billing: visa, mastercard etc ... separated from personal info by 
the fieldset element -->
</fieldset>
<button type="submit" name="save">Hook me up!</button>
</form>

We'd be happy to get some feedback on this way of doing forms, if anyone 
has a better idea when it comes to the semantics.

-- 
Herman Hassel
Agrabush Design

mail:    herman at agrabush.com
twitter: http://twitter.com/agrabush

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/help-whatwg.org/attachments/20101026/dfc3104e/attachment.htm>

From Daniel.Grebb at delval.edu  Mon Oct 25 17:26:26 2010
From: Daniel.Grebb at delval.edu (Grebb, Daniel)
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 20:26:26 -0400
Subject: [html5] List Types
In-Reply-To: <4CC600D4.40808@agrabush.com>
References: <mailman.0.1287860561.4921.help-whatwg.org@lists.whatwg.org>
	<4CC600D4.40808@agrabush.com>
Message-ID: <49846EC6-4736-4B06-9EA2-33C552A2F894@delval.edu>

Mr. Hassel,

What styling are you going for that needs the input and label to be grouped?

Best,
Dan Grebb

Please excuse the brevity and any typos as this was sent from my mobile. 

On Oct 25, 2010, at 18:14, "Herman Hassel" <herman at agrabush.com> wrote:

> On 23.10.2010 21:02, help-request at lists.whatwg.org wrote:
>> 
>> Hello,
>> 
>> I've some discussions with my team.
>> The first discussion was the correct use of the dl (definition list). Before the HTML5 the dl tag was a "definition list" n' the specification said that we should use in cases of dictionary data (Not usual for "Name: Jack", but usual for "Name: Nominal ID for a person").
>> Now, in the new specification, the dl is "description list" and de definition is: "Name-value groups may be terms and definitions, metadata topics and values, questions and answers, or any other groups of name-value data.". So it's not more a discussion =)
>> 
>> But other discussion is "ol" or "ul" for forms. What's more correct?
>> Here a example by alistapart with use of "ol": http://www.alistapart.com/articles/prettyaccessibleforms/
>> 
>> In HTML5 spec says: "The ol element represents a list of items, where the items have been intentionally ordered, such that changing the order would change the meaning of the document."
>> 
>> I think that the correct is use ul, because, for example, in a form with "name" n' "age" if we change the order of fields, the meaning is the same.
>> 
>> What do you know?
>> 
>> []'s
>> --
>> Renatho De Carli Rosa
>> 
>> Grifo
>> Desenvolvimento Client-side com intelig?ncia.
>> 
>> Av. Loureiro da Silva, 2001 / 917
>> Porto Alegre, RS
>> 
>> renathoc at hotmail.com (MSN)
>> renatho.rosa at grifotecnologia.com.br (Gtalk)
>> renathoc (Skype)
>> 
>> www.grifotecnologia.com.br
>> +55 51 3084.7760
>> +55 51 9996.7650
> Hi
> 
> We had the same heated debate a few months ago when it came to lists and forms. We concluded that using any list element to keep the label and input elements apart was redundant (although it does look kinda cool). The list element just didn't provide anything of semantic value to the form. We still needed to group each label and input for styling needs, hence we decided upon using div elements.
> 
> A simplistic example of how we do forms now:
> 
> <form>
>     <fileset>
>         <legend>Personal Info</legend>
>         <div>
>             <label for="full_name">Full Name:</label>
>             <input name="full_name" type="text" />
>         </div>
>         <div>
>             <label for="full_address">Full Address</label>
>             <input name="full_address" type="text" />
>         </div>
>     </fieldset>
>     <fieldset>
>         <legend>Billing</legend>
>         <!-- billing: visa, mastercard etc ... separated from personal info by the fieldset element -->
>     </fieldset>
>     <button type="submit" name="save">Hook me up!</button>
> </form>
> 
> We'd be happy to get some feedback on this way of doing forms, if anyone has a better idea when it comes to the semantics.
> 
> -- 
> Herman Hassel
> Agrabush Design
> 
> mail:    herman at agrabush.com
> twitter: http://twitter.com/agrabush
> _______________________________________________
> Help mailing list
> Help at lists.whatwg.org
> http://lists.whatwg.org/listinfo.cgi/help-whatwg.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/help-whatwg.org/attachments/20101025/5513a81d/attachment.htm>

From jasongross9+html5 at gmail.com  Mon Oct 25 23:55:18 2010
From: jasongross9+html5 at gmail.com (Jason Gross)
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 02:55:18 -0400
Subject: [html5] Radio Button Size
Message-ID: <AANLkTimBPHid8iwm3j3yyfaHLcc88gL67LTMzLfOz2PF@mail.gmail.com>

Is there a way to change the size of a radio button without resorting to
using images?  If not, should a way to do this without javascript become
proposed as part of the standard?
Thanks.

-Jason
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/help-whatwg.org/attachments/20101026/8f506e58/attachment.htm>

From paul.arzul at gmail.com  Tue Oct 26 03:26:41 2010
From: paul.arzul at gmail.com (Paul Arzul)
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 12:26:41 +0200
Subject: [html5] List Types
In-Reply-To: <4CC600D4.40808@agrabush.com>
References: <mailman.0.1287860561.4921.help-whatwg.org@lists.whatwg.org>
	<4CC600D4.40808@agrabush.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinRXGi8U4Y+ddLFzF03Mbs4J=9JMiuy=-W9wZ_7@mail.gmail.com>

On 26 October 2010 00:12, Herman Hassel <herman at agrabush.com> wrote:
> On 23.10.2010 21:02, help-request at lists.whatwg.org wrote:
>
> We'd be happy to get some feedback on this way of doing forms, if anyone has
> a better idea when it comes to the semantics.

You can nest the input in the label.


> <form>
> ??? <fileset>
> ??? ??? <legend>Personal Info</legend>
> ??? ??? <div>
> ??? ??? ??? <label for="full_name">Full Name:</label>
> ??? ??? ??? <input name="full_name" type="text" />
> ??? ??? </div>
> ??? ??? <div>
> ??? ??? ??? <label for="full_address">Full Address</label>
> ??? ??? ??? <input name="full_address" type="text" />
> ??? ??? </div>
> ??? </fieldset>

<legend>Personal Info</legend>
    <label>Full Name: <input></label>
    <label>Full Address: <input></label>
...

From diego.perini at gmail.com  Tue Oct 26 04:35:33 2010
From: diego.perini at gmail.com (Diego Perini)
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 13:35:33 +0200
Subject: [html5] Radio Button Size
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimBPHid8iwm3j3yyfaHLcc88gL67LTMzLfOz2PF@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTimBPHid8iwm3j3yyfaHLcc88gL67LTMzLfOz2PF@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTik6QhgjGQGEF-=Q2LVkc9BaM2pnB=U=xq+rubXx@mail.gmail.com>

I am not sure this can help, not sure either it is the right way to do
it by using CSS rules, however:

   <input type="radio" style="width: 64px; height: 64px; zoom: 2;">

in my tests, webkit based browsers can use the "zoom" property while
Firefox will do with "width/height" properties.

Webkit does a real zoom of the radio button, while Firefox is just
stretching the pixels and anti-aliasing them (bad result).


Diego


On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 8:55 AM, Jason Gross
<jasongross9+html5 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Is there a way to change the size of a radio button without resorting to
> using images? ?If not, should a way to do this without javascript become
> proposed as part of the standard?
> Thanks.
> -Jason
>
> _______________________________________________
> Help mailing list
> Help at lists.whatwg.org
> http://lists.whatwg.org/listinfo.cgi/help-whatwg.org
>
>

From renatho.rosa at grifotecnologia.com.br  Tue Oct 26 05:34:14 2010
From: renatho.rosa at grifotecnologia.com.br (Renatho Rosa)
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 10:34:14 -0200
Subject: [html5] List Types
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinRXGi8U4Y+ddLFzF03Mbs4J=9JMiuy=-W9wZ_7@mail.gmail.com>
References: <mailman.0.1287860561.4921.help-whatwg.org@lists.whatwg.org>
	<4CC600D4.40808@agrabush.com>
	<AANLkTinRXGi8U4Y+ddLFzF03Mbs4J=9JMiuy=-W9wZ_7@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinu6207aoK4UfgdwoLvOgv-hW9J-GmnF4SNQgjb@mail.gmail.com>

I prefer separate tags, because is more easily to style

<label for="full_name">Full Name:</label>
<input name="full_name" id="full_name" type="text" />

The "for" of label is linked with "id" of input, and not the "name"

--
Renatho De Carli Rosa
www.grifotecnologia.com.br


2010/10/26 Paul Arzul <paul.arzul at gmail.com>

> On 26 October 2010 00:12, Herman Hassel <herman at agrabush.com> wrote:
> > On 23.10.2010 21:02, help-request at lists.whatwg.org wrote:
> >
> > We'd be happy to get some feedback on this way of doing forms, if anyone
> has
> > a better idea when it comes to the semantics.
>
> You can nest the input in the label.
>
>
> > <form>
> >     <fileset>
> >         <legend>Personal Info</legend>
> >         <div>
> >             <label for="full_name">Full Name:</label>
> >             <input name="full_name" type="text" />
> >         </div>
> >         <div>
> >             <label for="full_address">Full Address</label>
> >             <input name="full_address" type="text" />
> >         </div>
> >     </fieldset>
>
> <legend>Personal Info</legend>
>    <label>Full Name: <input></label>
>    <label>Full Address: <input></label>
> ...
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/help-whatwg.org/attachments/20101026/2b890d44/attachment.htm>

From nicholas.stephan at gmail.com  Tue Oct 26 09:58:19 2010
From: nicholas.stephan at gmail.com (Nicholas Stephan)
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 09:58:19 -0700
Subject: [html5] Radio Button Size
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTik6QhgjGQGEF-=Q2LVkc9BaM2pnB=U=xq+rubXx@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTimBPHid8iwm3j3yyfaHLcc88gL67LTMzLfOz2PF@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTik6QhgjGQGEF-=Q2LVkc9BaM2pnB=U=xq+rubXx@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <0E557B09-EEA1-44E3-B560-BE36F23D5FC3@gmail.com>

Webkit and Mozilla also have the CSS attributes -webkit-appearance and -moz-appearance. Setting these to none will remove the default OS styling and give more control to the CSS. Of course, there's no hope for IE.




On Oct 26, 2010, at 4:35 AM, Diego Perini <diego.perini at gmail.com> wrote:

> I am not sure this can help, not sure either it is the right way to do
> it by using CSS rules, however:
> 
>   <input type="radio" style="width: 64px; height: 64px; zoom: 2;">
> 
> in my tests, webkit based browsers can use the "zoom" property while
> Firefox will do with "width/height" properties.
> 
> Webkit does a real zoom of the radio button, while Firefox is just
> stretching the pixels and anti-aliasing them (bad result).
> 
> 
> Diego
> 
> 
> On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 8:55 AM, Jason Gross
> <jasongross9+html5 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Is there a way to change the size of a radio button without resorting to
>> using images?  If not, should a way to do this without javascript become
>> proposed as part of the standard?
>> Thanks.
>> -Jason
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Help mailing list
>> Help at lists.whatwg.org
>> http://lists.whatwg.org/listinfo.cgi/help-whatwg.org
>> 
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> Help mailing list
> Help at lists.whatwg.org
> http://lists.whatwg.org/listinfo.cgi/help-whatwg.org

From renatho.rosa at grifotecnologia.com.br  Fri Oct 22 15:26:27 2010
From: renatho.rosa at grifotecnologia.com.br (Renatho Rosa)
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 20:26:27 -0200
Subject: [html5] List types
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=DAhfGmwVs6B_pt5o-OW=Vnt30+tbkaagTB+dH@mail.gmail.com>

Hello,

I've some discussions with my team.
The first discussion was the correct use of the dl (definition list). Before
the HTML5 the dl tag was a "definition list" n' the specification said that
we should use in cases of dictionary data (Not usual for "Name: Jack", but
usual for "Name: Nominal ID for a person").
Now, in the new specification, the dl is "description list" and de
definition is: "Name-value groups may be terms and definitions, metadata
topics and values, questions and answers, or any other groups of name-value
data.". So it's not more a discussion =)

But other discussion is "ol" or "ul" for forms. What's more correct?
Here a example by alistapart with use of "ol":
http://www.alistapart.com/articles/prettyaccessibleforms/

In HTML5 spec says: "The
ol<http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec-author-view/grouping-content.html#the-ol-element>element
represents <http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/rendering.html#represents> a list
of items, where the items have been intentionally ordered, such that
changing the order would change the meaning of the document."

I think that the correct is use ul, because, for example, in a form with
"name" n' "age" if we change the order of fields, the meaning is the same.

What do you know?

[]'s
--
Renatho De Carli Rosa

Grifo
Desenvolvimento Client-side com intelig?ncia.

Av. Loureiro da Silva, 2001 / 917
Porto Alegre, RS

renathoc at hotmail.com (MSN)
renatho.rosa at grifotecnologia.com.br (Gtalk)
renathoc (Skype)

www.grifotecnologia.com.br
+55 51 3084.7760
+55 51 9996.7650
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/help-whatwg.org/attachments/20101022/b3535688/attachment-0001.htm>

From jukka.k.korpela at kolumbus.fi  Sat Oct 23 03:34:17 2010
From: jukka.k.korpela at kolumbus.fi (Jukka K. Korpela)
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 13:34:17 +0300
Subject: [html5] List types
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=DAhfGmwVs6B_pt5o-OW=Vnt30+tbkaagTB+dH@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTi=DAhfGmwVs6B_pt5o-OW=Vnt30+tbkaagTB+dH@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2FAB65DA11F04164A2C1FC024E873B70@JukanPC>

Renatho Rosa wrote:

> Before the HTML5 the dl tag was a "definition list"

In practice, the dl element has been used for a wide range of purposes, 
defeating the original idea. Semantic markup isn't very useful if most pages 
use elements in a manner that conflicts with the defined semantics. For 
example, if a search engine treated dd as enclosing a term being defined, 
for the purposes of searching for definitions (or excluding defining 
occurrences from results), it would not find many definitions, and it would 
misclassify things.

HTML 4 reflects this in its watered-down, pretty useless "definition" of dl, 
first calling it a definition list, then saying that dd gives a 
_description_ (not definition), and ending this with the messy statement
"Another application of DL, for example, is for marking up dialogues, with 
each DT naming a speaker, and each DD containing his or her words." (Oddly 
enough, the HTML5 draft explicitly refutes such an idea, beating a dead 
horse, I would say. If someone has used dl for such a purpose, why should we 
tell him it's wrong?)

> Now, in the new specification,

You misspelled "current draft".

> the dl is "description list" and de
> definition is: "Name-value groups may be terms and definitions,
> metadata
> topics and values, questions and answers, or any other groups of
> name-value
> data.". So it's not more a discussion =)

Working drafts are discussion documents, though people might, at their own 
risk, also use them in authoring and in implementing software.

In practice, the dl element has become a layout tool for certain types of 
data. This can hardly be changed any more. It needs to be incorporated as a 
legacy element, hopefully with no misleading statements about its being a 
definition list. "Description list" is more appropriate than the old phrase 
"definition list", but the word "term" is still misleading in the current 
formulation of HTML5. Maybe dl could be called "variable list"; cf. to 
http://oreilly.com/oreilly/author/stylesheet.html (which presents a 
definition list as an example of a variable list). It would perhaps best be 
characterized as a list of (typically short) items with (typically longer) 
other kinds of items associated with them. Logically, it's more or less the 
equivalent of a two-column table.

Markup for definitions would be something completely different. It's a very 
complicated issue, much more
complicated than the new semantic elements that have been proposed in the 
HTML5 draft, so it should probably wait for HTML 6, or at least HTML5.1.

> But other discussion is "ol" or "ul" for forms. What's more correct?

Since the early days, ol has been a numbered list and ul has been a bulleted 
list. The difference is in rendering and could be expressed in CSS. The 
logical move would be to introduce the <list> element and deprecate (using 
whatever is politically correct way of deprecating things this week) <ul> 
and <ol>, but this is hardly a place for being logical. It's pretty harmless 
that authors select <ul> or <ol> according to the desired default rendering.

> Here a example by alistapart with use of "ol":
> http://www.alistapart.com/articles/prettyaccessibleforms/

It's pretty nonsensical. Putting form fields into a numbered list doesn't 
help anyone. A sequence of form fields with associated labels constitutes a 
two-column table more than anything else. (There's little point in making it 
a dl element, since the default rendering would be rather unsuitable.)

> In HTML5 spec

The current W3C draft for HTML5.

> says: "The
> ol<http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec-author-view/grouping-content.html#the-ol-element>element
> represents <http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/rendering.html#represents> a
> list
> of items, where the items have been intentionally ordered, such that
> changing the order would change the meaning of the document."

That's just a misguided attempt at retrofitting "semantics" into an age-old 
construct that simply corresponds to the idea of a numbered list. The 
_dangerous_ idea is the obvious implication, explicitly written out in the 
HTML5 draft, that in a ul element, the order is _not_ significant. This is 
just absurd. Millions of people have created ul elements without meaning 
that someone else, or maybe a browser, could arbitrarily reorder the items.

The essential difference is that in an ol element, the numbers explicitly 
indicate an order. Whether the order itself is essential cannot be deduced 
from the markup. The author may have chosen to use ol e.g. just because the 
items will then be automatically numbered, so that they can more easily be 
referred to, or maybe just to indicate the number of items in a natural way.

-- 
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/ 



From ricardobeat at gmail.com  Mon Oct 25 07:28:23 2010
From: ricardobeat at gmail.com (Ricardo Tomasi)
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 12:28:23 -0200
Subject: [html5] List types
Message-ID: <AANLkTikb+tmVhSU-cwX031_8q1pDt9a8JYP=u0qrLTbN@mail.gmail.com>

Jukka K. Korpela wrote:

>* Before the HTML5 the dl tag was a "definition list"*
> In practice, the dl element has been used for a wide range of purposes,
> defeating the original idea.

> If someone has used dl for such a purpose, why should we
> tell him it's wrong?)

AFAIK Googlebot and others already look into definition lists for
"definitions" (as in define:something search queries). Sometimes you
can spot misused dl tags in there, when you get some random/specific
data as definition text.

>* But other discussion is "ol" or "ul" for forms. What's more correct?*
> Since the early days, ol has been a numbered list and ul has been a bulleted
> list. The difference is in rendering and could be expressed in CSS.

The ol and ul tags have had their semantic meaning (ordered list,
unordered list) since at least 1999, that's more than a decade. You
can turn divs into a bulleted list using CSS.

> (...) It's pretty harmless
> that authors select <ul> or <ol> according to the desired default rendering.

I don't see selecting elements according to a desired default
rendering as recommended practice by any of the standards bodies.

> It's pretty nonsensical. Putting form fields into a numbered list doesn't
> help anyone. A sequence of form fields with associated labels constitutes a
> two-column table more than anything else. (There's little point in making it
> a dl element, since the default rendering would be rather unsuitable.)

Again, rendering is out of scope for this matter.

Tables are for tabular data. In addition, a label already defines it
relationship to an input by itself (the for attribute), so by putting
form controls in a table you're making a redundant association between
those elements. What would be a suitable header for the labels column?
"Labels"?

Putting form controls in a list helps screen-reader users, by letting
them know the total number of inputs/steps in the form, and allowing
them to navigate easily. It also makes sense to consider label/input
pairs as separate pieces. As a bonus, it makes for easy styling.

> (...) The author may have chosen to use ol e.g. just because the
> items will then be automatically numbered, so that they can more easily be
> referred to, or maybe just to indicate the number of items in a natural way.

An author may have chosen to use a fieldset+legend for his header
titles because it has a fancy border, but I fail to see how this is
relevant for the matter of semantics, or accessibility. Should we just
ignore the specification and do whatever we wish? Again, the semantics
for ul and ol elements has been established for more than a decade.

--

ricardo
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/help-whatwg.org/attachments/20101025/f440c236/attachment-0001.htm>

From herman at agrabush.com  Mon Oct 25 15:12:36 2010
From: herman at agrabush.com (Herman Hassel)
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 00:12:36 +0200
Subject: [html5] List Types
In-Reply-To: <mailman.0.1287860561.4921.help-whatwg.org@lists.whatwg.org>
References: <mailman.0.1287860561.4921.help-whatwg.org@lists.whatwg.org>
Message-ID: <4CC600D4.40808@agrabush.com>

On 23.10.2010 21:02, help-request at lists.whatwg.org wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I've some discussions with my team.
> The first discussion was the correct use of the dl (definition list). 
> Before the HTML5 the dl tag was a "definition list" n' the 
> specification said that we should use in cases of dictionary data (Not 
> usual for "Name: Jack", but usual for "Name: Nominal ID for a person").
> Now, in the new specification, the dl is "description list" and de 
> definition is: "Name-value groups may be terms and definitions, 
> metadata topics and values, questions and answers, or any other groups 
> of name-value data.". So it's not more a discussion =)
>
> But other discussion is "ol" or "ul" for forms. What's more correct?
> Here a example by alistapart with use of "ol": 
> http://www.alistapart.com/articles/prettyaccessibleforms/
>
> In HTML5 spec says: "The |ol 
> <http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec-author-view/grouping-content.html#the-ol-element>| 
> element represents 
> <http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/rendering.html#represents> a list of 
> items, where the items have been intentionally ordered, such that 
> changing the order would change the meaning of the document."
>
> I think that the correct is use ul, because, for example, in a form 
> with "name" n' "age" if we change the order of fields, the meaning is 
> the same.
>
> What do you know?
>
> []'s
> --
> Renatho De Carli Rosa
>
> Grifo
> Desenvolvimento Client-side com intelig?ncia.
>
> Av. Loureiro da Silva, 2001 / 917
> Porto Alegre, RS
>
> renathoc at hotmail.com <mailto:renathoc at hotmail.com> (MSN)
> renatho.rosa at grifotecnologia.com.br 
> <mailto:renatho.rosa at grifotecnologia.com.br> (Gtalk)
> renathoc (Skype)
>
> www.grifotecnologia.com.br <http://www.grifotecnologia.com.br>
> +55 51 3084.7760
> +55 51 9996.7650
Hi

We had the same heated debate a few months ago when it came to lists and 
forms. We concluded that using any list element to keep the label and 
input elements apart was redundant (although it does look kinda cool). 
The list element just didn't provide anything of semantic value to the 
form. We still needed to group each label and input for styling needs, 
hence we decided upon using div elements.

A simplistic example of how we do forms now:

<form>
<fileset>
<legend>Personal Info</legend>
<div>
<label for="full_name">Full Name:</label>
<input name="full_name" type="text" />
</div>
<div>
<label for="full_address">Full Address</label>
<input name="full_address" type="text" />
</div>
</fieldset>
<fieldset>
<legend>Billing</legend>
<!-- billing: visa, mastercard etc ... separated from personal info by 
the fieldset element -->
</fieldset>
<button type="submit" name="save">Hook me up!</button>
</form>

We'd be happy to get some feedback on this way of doing forms, if anyone 
has a better idea when it comes to the semantics.

-- 
Herman Hassel
Agrabush Design

mail:    herman at agrabush.com
twitter: http://twitter.com/agrabush

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/help-whatwg.org/attachments/20101026/dfc3104e/attachment-0002.htm>

From Daniel.Grebb at delval.edu  Mon Oct 25 17:26:26 2010
From: Daniel.Grebb at delval.edu (Grebb, Daniel)
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 20:26:26 -0400
Subject: [html5] List Types
In-Reply-To: <4CC600D4.40808@agrabush.com>
References: <mailman.0.1287860561.4921.help-whatwg.org@lists.whatwg.org>
	<4CC600D4.40808@agrabush.com>
Message-ID: <49846EC6-4736-4B06-9EA2-33C552A2F894@delval.edu>

Mr. Hassel,

What styling are you going for that needs the input and label to be grouped?

Best,
Dan Grebb

Please excuse the brevity and any typos as this was sent from my mobile. 

On Oct 25, 2010, at 18:14, "Herman Hassel" <herman at agrabush.com> wrote:

> On 23.10.2010 21:02, help-request at lists.whatwg.org wrote:
>> 
>> Hello,
>> 
>> I've some discussions with my team.
>> The first discussion was the correct use of the dl (definition list). Before the HTML5 the dl tag was a "definition list" n' the specification said that we should use in cases of dictionary data (Not usual for "Name: Jack", but usual for "Name: Nominal ID for a person").
>> Now, in the new specification, the dl is "description list" and de definition is: "Name-value groups may be terms and definitions, metadata topics and values, questions and answers, or any other groups of name-value data.". So it's not more a discussion =)
>> 
>> But other discussion is "ol" or "ul" for forms. What's more correct?
>> Here a example by alistapart with use of "ol": http://www.alistapart.com/articles/prettyaccessibleforms/
>> 
>> In HTML5 spec says: "The ol element represents a list of items, where the items have been intentionally ordered, such that changing the order would change the meaning of the document."
>> 
>> I think that the correct is use ul, because, for example, in a form with "name" n' "age" if we change the order of fields, the meaning is the same.
>> 
>> What do you know?
>> 
>> []'s
>> --
>> Renatho De Carli Rosa
>> 
>> Grifo
>> Desenvolvimento Client-side com intelig?ncia.
>> 
>> Av. Loureiro da Silva, 2001 / 917
>> Porto Alegre, RS
>> 
>> renathoc at hotmail.com (MSN)
>> renatho.rosa at grifotecnologia.com.br (Gtalk)
>> renathoc (Skype)
>> 
>> www.grifotecnologia.com.br
>> +55 51 3084.7760
>> +55 51 9996.7650
> Hi
> 
> We had the same heated debate a few months ago when it came to lists and forms. We concluded that using any list element to keep the label and input elements apart was redundant (although it does look kinda cool). The list element just didn't provide anything of semantic value to the form. We still needed to group each label and input for styling needs, hence we decided upon using div elements.
> 
> A simplistic example of how we do forms now:
> 
> <form>
>     <fileset>
>         <legend>Personal Info</legend>
>         <div>
>             <label for="full_name">Full Name:</label>
>             <input name="full_name" type="text" />
>         </div>
>         <div>
>             <label for="full_address">Full Address</label>
>             <input name="full_address" type="text" />
>         </div>
>     </fieldset>
>     <fieldset>
>         <legend>Billing</legend>
>         <!-- billing: visa, mastercard etc ... separated from personal info by the fieldset element -->
>     </fieldset>
>     <button type="submit" name="save">Hook me up!</button>
> </form>
> 
> We'd be happy to get some feedback on this way of doing forms, if anyone has a better idea when it comes to the semantics.
> 
> -- 
> Herman Hassel
> Agrabush Design
> 
> mail:    herman at agrabush.com
> twitter: http://twitter.com/agrabush
> _______________________________________________
> Help mailing list
> Help at lists.whatwg.org
> http://lists.whatwg.org/listinfo.cgi/help-whatwg.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/help-whatwg.org/attachments/20101025/5513a81d/attachment-0002.htm>

From jasongross9+html5 at gmail.com  Mon Oct 25 23:55:18 2010
From: jasongross9+html5 at gmail.com (Jason Gross)
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 02:55:18 -0400
Subject: [html5] Radio Button Size
Message-ID: <AANLkTimBPHid8iwm3j3yyfaHLcc88gL67LTMzLfOz2PF@mail.gmail.com>

Is there a way to change the size of a radio button without resorting to
using images?  If not, should a way to do this without javascript become
proposed as part of the standard?
Thanks.

-Jason
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/help-whatwg.org/attachments/20101026/8f506e58/attachment-0002.htm>

From paul.arzul at gmail.com  Tue Oct 26 03:26:41 2010
From: paul.arzul at gmail.com (Paul Arzul)
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 12:26:41 +0200
Subject: [html5] List Types
In-Reply-To: <4CC600D4.40808@agrabush.com>
References: <mailman.0.1287860561.4921.help-whatwg.org@lists.whatwg.org>
	<4CC600D4.40808@agrabush.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinRXGi8U4Y+ddLFzF03Mbs4J=9JMiuy=-W9wZ_7@mail.gmail.com>

On 26 October 2010 00:12, Herman Hassel <herman at agrabush.com> wrote:
> On 23.10.2010 21:02, help-request at lists.whatwg.org wrote:
>
> We'd be happy to get some feedback on this way of doing forms, if anyone has
> a better idea when it comes to the semantics.

You can nest the input in the label.


> <form>
> ??? <fileset>
> ??? ??? <legend>Personal Info</legend>
> ??? ??? <div>
> ??? ??? ??? <label for="full_name">Full Name:</label>
> ??? ??? ??? <input name="full_name" type="text" />
> ??? ??? </div>
> ??? ??? <div>
> ??? ??? ??? <label for="full_address">Full Address</label>
> ??? ??? ??? <input name="full_address" type="text" />
> ??? ??? </div>
> ??? </fieldset>

<legend>Personal Info</legend>
    <label>Full Name: <input></label>
    <label>Full Address: <input></label>
...


From diego.perini at gmail.com  Tue Oct 26 04:35:33 2010
From: diego.perini at gmail.com (Diego Perini)
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 13:35:33 +0200
Subject: [html5] Radio Button Size
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimBPHid8iwm3j3yyfaHLcc88gL67LTMzLfOz2PF@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTimBPHid8iwm3j3yyfaHLcc88gL67LTMzLfOz2PF@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTik6QhgjGQGEF-=Q2LVkc9BaM2pnB=U=xq+rubXx@mail.gmail.com>

I am not sure this can help, not sure either it is the right way to do
it by using CSS rules, however:

   <input type="radio" style="width: 64px; height: 64px; zoom: 2;">

in my tests, webkit based browsers can use the "zoom" property while
Firefox will do with "width/height" properties.

Webkit does a real zoom of the radio button, while Firefox is just
stretching the pixels and anti-aliasing them (bad result).


Diego


On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 8:55 AM, Jason Gross
<jasongross9+html5 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Is there a way to change the size of a radio button without resorting to
> using images? ?If not, should a way to do this without javascript become
> proposed as part of the standard?
> Thanks.
> -Jason
>
> _______________________________________________
> Help mailing list
> Help at lists.whatwg.org
> http://lists.whatwg.org/listinfo.cgi/help-whatwg.org
>
>


From renatho.rosa at grifotecnologia.com.br  Tue Oct 26 05:34:14 2010
From: renatho.rosa at grifotecnologia.com.br (Renatho Rosa)
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 10:34:14 -0200
Subject: [html5] List Types
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinRXGi8U4Y+ddLFzF03Mbs4J=9JMiuy=-W9wZ_7@mail.gmail.com>
References: <mailman.0.1287860561.4921.help-whatwg.org@lists.whatwg.org>
	<4CC600D4.40808@agrabush.com>
	<AANLkTinRXGi8U4Y+ddLFzF03Mbs4J=9JMiuy=-W9wZ_7@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinu6207aoK4UfgdwoLvOgv-hW9J-GmnF4SNQgjb@mail.gmail.com>

I prefer separate tags, because is more easily to style

<label for="full_name">Full Name:</label>
<input name="full_name" id="full_name" type="text" />

The "for" of label is linked with "id" of input, and not the "name"

--
Renatho De Carli Rosa
www.grifotecnologia.com.br


2010/10/26 Paul Arzul <paul.arzul at gmail.com>

> On 26 October 2010 00:12, Herman Hassel <herman at agrabush.com> wrote:
> > On 23.10.2010 21:02, help-request at lists.whatwg.org wrote:
> >
> > We'd be happy to get some feedback on this way of doing forms, if anyone
> has
> > a better idea when it comes to the semantics.
>
> You can nest the input in the label.
>
>
> > <form>
> >     <fileset>
> >         <legend>Personal Info</legend>
> >         <div>
> >             <label for="full_name">Full Name:</label>
> >             <input name="full_name" type="text" />
> >         </div>
> >         <div>
> >             <label for="full_address">Full Address</label>
> >             <input name="full_address" type="text" />
> >         </div>
> >     </fieldset>
>
> <legend>Personal Info</legend>
>    <label>Full Name: <input></label>
>    <label>Full Address: <input></label>
> ...
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/help-whatwg.org/attachments/20101026/2b890d44/attachment-0001.htm>

From nicholas.stephan at gmail.com  Tue Oct 26 09:58:19 2010
From: nicholas.stephan at gmail.com (Nicholas Stephan)
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 09:58:19 -0700
Subject: [html5] Radio Button Size
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTik6QhgjGQGEF-=Q2LVkc9BaM2pnB=U=xq+rubXx@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTimBPHid8iwm3j3yyfaHLcc88gL67LTMzLfOz2PF@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTik6QhgjGQGEF-=Q2LVkc9BaM2pnB=U=xq+rubXx@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <0E557B09-EEA1-44E3-B560-BE36F23D5FC3@gmail.com>

Webkit and Mozilla also have the CSS attributes -webkit-appearance and -moz-appearance. Setting these to none will remove the default OS styling and give more control to the CSS. Of course, there's no hope for IE.




On Oct 26, 2010, at 4:35 AM, Diego Perini <diego.perini at gmail.com> wrote:

> I am not sure this can help, not sure either it is the right way to do
> it by using CSS rules, however:
> 
>   <input type="radio" style="width: 64px; height: 64px; zoom: 2;">
> 
> in my tests, webkit based browsers can use the "zoom" property while
> Firefox will do with "width/height" properties.
> 
> Webkit does a real zoom of the radio button, while Firefox is just
> stretching the pixels and anti-aliasing them (bad result).
> 
> 
> Diego
> 
> 
> On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 8:55 AM, Jason Gross
> <jasongross9+html5 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Is there a way to change the size of a radio button without resorting to
>> using images?  If not, should a way to do this without javascript become
>> proposed as part of the standard?
>> Thanks.
>> -Jason
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Help mailing list
>> Help at lists.whatwg.org
>> http://lists.whatwg.org/listinfo.cgi/help-whatwg.org
>> 
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> Help mailing list
> Help at lists.whatwg.org
> http://lists.whatwg.org/listinfo.cgi/help-whatwg.org


From renatho.rosa at grifotecnologia.com.br  Fri Oct 22 15:26:27 2010
From: renatho.rosa at grifotecnologia.com.br (Renatho Rosa)
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 20:26:27 -0200
Subject: [html5] List types
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=DAhfGmwVs6B_pt5o-OW=Vnt30+tbkaagTB+dH@mail.gmail.com>

Hello,

I've some discussions with my team.
The first discussion was the correct use of the dl (definition list). Before
the HTML5 the dl tag was a "definition list" n' the specification said that
we should use in cases of dictionary data (Not usual for "Name: Jack", but
usual for "Name: Nominal ID for a person").
Now, in the new specification, the dl is "description list" and de
definition is: "Name-value groups may be terms and definitions, metadata
topics and values, questions and answers, or any other groups of name-value
data.". So it's not more a discussion =)

But other discussion is "ol" or "ul" for forms. What's more correct?
Here a example by alistapart with use of "ol":
http://www.alistapart.com/articles/prettyaccessibleforms/

In HTML5 spec says: "The
ol<http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec-author-view/grouping-content.html#the-ol-element>element
represents <http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/rendering.html#represents> a list
of items, where the items have been intentionally ordered, such that
changing the order would change the meaning of the document."

I think that the correct is use ul, because, for example, in a form with
"name" n' "age" if we change the order of fields, the meaning is the same.

What do you know?

[]'s
--
Renatho De Carli Rosa

Grifo
Desenvolvimento Client-side com intelig?ncia.

Av. Loureiro da Silva, 2001 / 917
Porto Alegre, RS

renathoc at hotmail.com (MSN)
renatho.rosa at grifotecnologia.com.br (Gtalk)
renathoc (Skype)

www.grifotecnologia.com.br
+55 51 3084.7760
+55 51 9996.7650
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/help-whatwg.org/attachments/20101022/b3535688/attachment-0002.htm>

From jukka.k.korpela at kolumbus.fi  Sat Oct 23 03:34:17 2010
From: jukka.k.korpela at kolumbus.fi (Jukka K. Korpela)
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 13:34:17 +0300
Subject: [html5] List types
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=DAhfGmwVs6B_pt5o-OW=Vnt30+tbkaagTB+dH@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTi=DAhfGmwVs6B_pt5o-OW=Vnt30+tbkaagTB+dH@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2FAB65DA11F04164A2C1FC024E873B70@JukanPC>

Renatho Rosa wrote:

> Before the HTML5 the dl tag was a "definition list"

In practice, the dl element has been used for a wide range of purposes, 
defeating the original idea. Semantic markup isn't very useful if most pages 
use elements in a manner that conflicts with the defined semantics. For 
example, if a search engine treated dd as enclosing a term being defined, 
for the purposes of searching for definitions (or excluding defining 
occurrences from results), it would not find many definitions, and it would 
misclassify things.

HTML 4 reflects this in its watered-down, pretty useless "definition" of dl, 
first calling it a definition list, then saying that dd gives a 
_description_ (not definition), and ending this with the messy statement
"Another application of DL, for example, is for marking up dialogues, with 
each DT naming a speaker, and each DD containing his or her words." (Oddly 
enough, the HTML5 draft explicitly refutes such an idea, beating a dead 
horse, I would say. If someone has used dl for such a purpose, why should we 
tell him it's wrong?)

> Now, in the new specification,

You misspelled "current draft".

> the dl is "description list" and de
> definition is: "Name-value groups may be terms and definitions,
> metadata
> topics and values, questions and answers, or any other groups of
> name-value
> data.". So it's not more a discussion =)

Working drafts are discussion documents, though people might, at their own 
risk, also use them in authoring and in implementing software.

In practice, the dl element has become a layout tool for certain types of 
data. This can hardly be changed any more. It needs to be incorporated as a 
legacy element, hopefully with no misleading statements about its being a 
definition list. "Description list" is more appropriate than the old phrase 
"definition list", but the word "term" is still misleading in the current 
formulation of HTML5. Maybe dl could be called "variable list"; cf. to 
http://oreilly.com/oreilly/author/stylesheet.html (which presents a 
definition list as an example of a variable list). It would perhaps best be 
characterized as a list of (typically short) items with (typically longer) 
other kinds of items associated with them. Logically, it's more or less the 
equivalent of a two-column table.

Markup for definitions would be something completely different. It's a very 
complicated issue, much more
complicated than the new semantic elements that have been proposed in the 
HTML5 draft, so it should probably wait for HTML 6, or at least HTML5.1.

> But other discussion is "ol" or "ul" for forms. What's more correct?

Since the early days, ol has been a numbered list and ul has been a bulleted 
list. The difference is in rendering and could be expressed in CSS. The 
logical move would be to introduce the <list> element and deprecate (using 
whatever is politically correct way of deprecating things this week) <ul> 
and <ol>, but this is hardly a place for being logical. It's pretty harmless 
that authors select <ul> or <ol> according to the desired default rendering.

> Here a example by alistapart with use of "ol":
> http://www.alistapart.com/articles/prettyaccessibleforms/

It's pretty nonsensical. Putting form fields into a numbered list doesn't 
help anyone. A sequence of form fields with associated labels constitutes a 
two-column table more than anything else. (There's little point in making it 
a dl element, since the default rendering would be rather unsuitable.)

> In HTML5 spec

The current W3C draft for HTML5.

> says: "The
> ol<http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec-author-view/grouping-content.html#the-ol-element>element
> represents <http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/rendering.html#represents> a
> list
> of items, where the items have been intentionally ordered, such that
> changing the order would change the meaning of the document."

That's just a misguided attempt at retrofitting "semantics" into an age-old 
construct that simply corresponds to the idea of a numbered list. The 
_dangerous_ idea is the obvious implication, explicitly written out in the 
HTML5 draft, that in a ul element, the order is _not_ significant. This is 
just absurd. Millions of people have created ul elements without meaning 
that someone else, or maybe a browser, could arbitrarily reorder the items.

The essential difference is that in an ol element, the numbers explicitly 
indicate an order. Whether the order itself is essential cannot be deduced 
from the markup. The author may have chosen to use ol e.g. just because the 
items will then be automatically numbered, so that they can more easily be 
referred to, or maybe just to indicate the number of items in a natural way.

-- 
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/ 



From ricardobeat at gmail.com  Mon Oct 25 07:28:23 2010
From: ricardobeat at gmail.com (Ricardo Tomasi)
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 12:28:23 -0200
Subject: [html5] List types
Message-ID: <AANLkTikb+tmVhSU-cwX031_8q1pDt9a8JYP=u0qrLTbN@mail.gmail.com>

Jukka K. Korpela wrote:

>* Before the HTML5 the dl tag was a "definition list"*
> In practice, the dl element has been used for a wide range of purposes,
> defeating the original idea.

> If someone has used dl for such a purpose, why should we
> tell him it's wrong?)

AFAIK Googlebot and others already look into definition lists for
"definitions" (as in define:something search queries). Sometimes you
can spot misused dl tags in there, when you get some random/specific
data as definition text.

>* But other discussion is "ol" or "ul" for forms. What's more correct?*
> Since the early days, ol has been a numbered list and ul has been a bulleted
> list. The difference is in rendering and could be expressed in CSS.

The ol and ul tags have had their semantic meaning (ordered list,
unordered list) since at least 1999, that's more than a decade. You
can turn divs into a bulleted list using CSS.

> (...) It's pretty harmless
> that authors select <ul> or <ol> according to the desired default rendering.

I don't see selecting elements according to a desired default
rendering as recommended practice by any of the standards bodies.

> It's pretty nonsensical. Putting form fields into a numbered list doesn't
> help anyone. A sequence of form fields with associated labels constitutes a
> two-column table more than anything else. (There's little point in making it
> a dl element, since the default rendering would be rather unsuitable.)

Again, rendering is out of scope for this matter.

Tables are for tabular data. In addition, a label already defines it
relationship to an input by itself (the for attribute), so by putting
form controls in a table you're making a redundant association between
those elements. What would be a suitable header for the labels column?
"Labels"?

Putting form controls in a list helps screen-reader users, by letting
them know the total number of inputs/steps in the form, and allowing
them to navigate easily. It also makes sense to consider label/input
pairs as separate pieces. As a bonus, it makes for easy styling.

> (...) The author may have chosen to use ol e.g. just because the
> items will then be automatically numbered, so that they can more easily be
> referred to, or maybe just to indicate the number of items in a natural way.

An author may have chosen to use a fieldset+legend for his header
titles because it has a fancy border, but I fail to see how this is
relevant for the matter of semantics, or accessibility. Should we just
ignore the specification and do whatever we wish? Again, the semantics
for ul and ol elements has been established for more than a decade.

--

ricardo
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/help-whatwg.org/attachments/20101025/f440c236/attachment-0002.htm>

From herman at agrabush.com  Mon Oct 25 15:12:36 2010
From: herman at agrabush.com (Herman Hassel)
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 00:12:36 +0200
Subject: [html5] List Types
In-Reply-To: <mailman.0.1287860561.4921.help-whatwg.org@lists.whatwg.org>
References: <mailman.0.1287860561.4921.help-whatwg.org@lists.whatwg.org>
Message-ID: <4CC600D4.40808@agrabush.com>

On 23.10.2010 21:02, help-request at lists.whatwg.org wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I've some discussions with my team.
> The first discussion was the correct use of the dl (definition list). 
> Before the HTML5 the dl tag was a "definition list" n' the 
> specification said that we should use in cases of dictionary data (Not 
> usual for "Name: Jack", but usual for "Name: Nominal ID for a person").
> Now, in the new specification, the dl is "description list" and de 
> definition is: "Name-value groups may be terms and definitions, 
> metadata topics and values, questions and answers, or any other groups 
> of name-value data.". So it's not more a discussion =)
>
> But other discussion is "ol" or "ul" for forms. What's more correct?
> Here a example by alistapart with use of "ol": 
> http://www.alistapart.com/articles/prettyaccessibleforms/
>
> In HTML5 spec says: "The |ol 
> <http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec-author-view/grouping-content.html#the-ol-element>| 
> element represents 
> <http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/rendering.html#represents> a list of 
> items, where the items have been intentionally ordered, such that 
> changing the order would change the meaning of the document."
>
> I think that the correct is use ul, because, for example, in a form 
> with "name" n' "age" if we change the order of fields, the meaning is 
> the same.
>
> What do you know?
>
> []'s
> --
> Renatho De Carli Rosa
>
> Grifo
> Desenvolvimento Client-side com intelig?ncia.
>
> Av. Loureiro da Silva, 2001 / 917
> Porto Alegre, RS
>
> renathoc at hotmail.com <mailto:renathoc at hotmail.com> (MSN)
> renatho.rosa at grifotecnologia.com.br 
> <mailto:renatho.rosa at grifotecnologia.com.br> (Gtalk)
> renathoc (Skype)
>
> www.grifotecnologia.com.br <http://www.grifotecnologia.com.br>
> +55 51 3084.7760
> +55 51 9996.7650
Hi

We had the same heated debate a few months ago when it came to lists and 
forms. We concluded that using any list element to keep the label and 
input elements apart was redundant (although it does look kinda cool). 
The list element just didn't provide anything of semantic value to the 
form. We still needed to group each label and input for styling needs, 
hence we decided upon using div elements.

A simplistic example of how we do forms now:

<form>
<fileset>
<legend>Personal Info</legend>
<div>
<label for="full_name">Full Name:</label>
<input name="full_name" type="text" />
</div>
<div>
<label for="full_address">Full Address</label>
<input name="full_address" type="text" />
</div>
</fieldset>
<fieldset>
<legend>Billing</legend>
<!-- billing: visa, mastercard etc ... separated from personal info by 
the fieldset element -->
</fieldset>
<button type="submit" name="save">Hook me up!</button>
</form>

We'd be happy to get some feedback on this way of doing forms, if anyone 
has a better idea when it comes to the semantics.

-- 
Herman Hassel
Agrabush Design

mail:    herman at agrabush.com
twitter: http://twitter.com/agrabush

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/help-whatwg.org/attachments/20101026/dfc3104e/attachment-0003.htm>

From Daniel.Grebb at delval.edu  Mon Oct 25 17:26:26 2010
From: Daniel.Grebb at delval.edu (Grebb, Daniel)
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 20:26:26 -0400
Subject: [html5] List Types
In-Reply-To: <4CC600D4.40808@agrabush.com>
References: <mailman.0.1287860561.4921.help-whatwg.org@lists.whatwg.org>
	<4CC600D4.40808@agrabush.com>
Message-ID: <49846EC6-4736-4B06-9EA2-33C552A2F894@delval.edu>

Mr. Hassel,

What styling are you going for that needs the input and label to be grouped?

Best,
Dan Grebb

Please excuse the brevity and any typos as this was sent from my mobile. 

On Oct 25, 2010, at 18:14, "Herman Hassel" <herman at agrabush.com> wrote:

> On 23.10.2010 21:02, help-request at lists.whatwg.org wrote:
>> 
>> Hello,
>> 
>> I've some discussions with my team.
>> The first discussion was the correct use of the dl (definition list). Before the HTML5 the dl tag was a "definition list" n' the specification said that we should use in cases of dictionary data (Not usual for "Name: Jack", but usual for "Name: Nominal ID for a person").
>> Now, in the new specification, the dl is "description list" and de definition is: "Name-value groups may be terms and definitions, metadata topics and values, questions and answers, or any other groups of name-value data.". So it's not more a discussion =)
>> 
>> But other discussion is "ol" or "ul" for forms. What's more correct?
>> Here a example by alistapart with use of "ol": http://www.alistapart.com/articles/prettyaccessibleforms/
>> 
>> In HTML5 spec says: "The ol element represents a list of items, where the items have been intentionally ordered, such that changing the order would change the meaning of the document."
>> 
>> I think that the correct is use ul, because, for example, in a form with "name" n' "age" if we change the order of fields, the meaning is the same.
>> 
>> What do you know?
>> 
>> []'s
>> --
>> Renatho De Carli Rosa
>> 
>> Grifo
>> Desenvolvimento Client-side com intelig?ncia.
>> 
>> Av. Loureiro da Silva, 2001 / 917
>> Porto Alegre, RS
>> 
>> renathoc at hotmail.com (MSN)
>> renatho.rosa at grifotecnologia.com.br (Gtalk)
>> renathoc (Skype)
>> 
>> www.grifotecnologia.com.br
>> +55 51 3084.7760
>> +55 51 9996.7650
> Hi
> 
> We had the same heated debate a few months ago when it came to lists and forms. We concluded that using any list element to keep the label and input elements apart was redundant (although it does look kinda cool). The list element just didn't provide anything of semantic value to the form. We still needed to group each label and input for styling needs, hence we decided upon using div elements.
> 
> A simplistic example of how we do forms now:
> 
> <form>
>     <fileset>
>         <legend>Personal Info</legend>
>         <div>
>             <label for="full_name">Full Name:</label>
>             <input name="full_name" type="text" />
>         </div>
>         <div>
>             <label for="full_address">Full Address</label>
>             <input name="full_address" type="text" />
>         </div>
>     </fieldset>
>     <fieldset>
>         <legend>Billing</legend>
>         <!-- billing: visa, mastercard etc ... separated from personal info by the fieldset element -->
>     </fieldset>
>     <button type="submit" name="save">Hook me up!</button>
> </form>
> 
> We'd be happy to get some feedback on this way of doing forms, if anyone has a better idea when it comes to the semantics.
> 
> -- 
> Herman Hassel
> Agrabush Design
> 
> mail:    herman at agrabush.com
> twitter: http://twitter.com/agrabush
> _______________________________________________
> Help mailing list
> Help at lists.whatwg.org
> http://lists.whatwg.org/listinfo.cgi/help-whatwg.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/help-whatwg.org/attachments/20101025/5513a81d/attachment-0003.htm>

From jasongross9+html5 at gmail.com  Mon Oct 25 23:55:18 2010
From: jasongross9+html5 at gmail.com (Jason Gross)
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 02:55:18 -0400
Subject: [html5] Radio Button Size
Message-ID: <AANLkTimBPHid8iwm3j3yyfaHLcc88gL67LTMzLfOz2PF@mail.gmail.com>

Is there a way to change the size of a radio button without resorting to
using images?  If not, should a way to do this without javascript become
proposed as part of the standard?
Thanks.

-Jason
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/help-whatwg.org/attachments/20101026/8f506e58/attachment-0003.htm>

From paul.arzul at gmail.com  Tue Oct 26 03:26:41 2010
From: paul.arzul at gmail.com (Paul Arzul)
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 12:26:41 +0200
Subject: [html5] List Types
In-Reply-To: <4CC600D4.40808@agrabush.com>
References: <mailman.0.1287860561.4921.help-whatwg.org@lists.whatwg.org>
	<4CC600D4.40808@agrabush.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinRXGi8U4Y+ddLFzF03Mbs4J=9JMiuy=-W9wZ_7@mail.gmail.com>

On 26 October 2010 00:12, Herman Hassel <herman at agrabush.com> wrote:
> On 23.10.2010 21:02, help-request at lists.whatwg.org wrote:
>
> We'd be happy to get some feedback on this way of doing forms, if anyone has
> a better idea when it comes to the semantics.

You can nest the input in the label.


> <form>
> ??? <fileset>
> ??? ??? <legend>Personal Info</legend>
> ??? ??? <div>
> ??? ??? ??? <label for="full_name">Full Name:</label>
> ??? ??? ??? <input name="full_name" type="text" />
> ??? ??? </div>
> ??? ??? <div>
> ??? ??? ??? <label for="full_address">Full Address</label>
> ??? ??? ??? <input name="full_address" type="text" />
> ??? ??? </div>
> ??? </fieldset>

<legend>Personal Info</legend>
    <label>Full Name: <input></label>
    <label>Full Address: <input></label>
...


From diego.perini at gmail.com  Tue Oct 26 04:35:33 2010
From: diego.perini at gmail.com (Diego Perini)
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 13:35:33 +0200
Subject: [html5] Radio Button Size
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimBPHid8iwm3j3yyfaHLcc88gL67LTMzLfOz2PF@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTimBPHid8iwm3j3yyfaHLcc88gL67LTMzLfOz2PF@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTik6QhgjGQGEF-=Q2LVkc9BaM2pnB=U=xq+rubXx@mail.gmail.com>

I am not sure this can help, not sure either it is the right way to do
it by using CSS rules, however:

   <input type="radio" style="width: 64px; height: 64px; zoom: 2;">

in my tests, webkit based browsers can use the "zoom" property while
Firefox will do with "width/height" properties.

Webkit does a real zoom of the radio button, while Firefox is just
stretching the pixels and anti-aliasing them (bad result).


Diego


On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 8:55 AM, Jason Gross
<jasongross9+html5 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Is there a way to change the size of a radio button without resorting to
> using images? ?If not, should a way to do this without javascript become
> proposed as part of the standard?
> Thanks.
> -Jason
>
> _______________________________________________
> Help mailing list
> Help at lists.whatwg.org
> http://lists.whatwg.org/listinfo.cgi/help-whatwg.org
>
>


From renatho.rosa at grifotecnologia.com.br  Tue Oct 26 05:34:14 2010
From: renatho.rosa at grifotecnologia.com.br (Renatho Rosa)
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 10:34:14 -0200
Subject: [html5] List Types
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinRXGi8U4Y+ddLFzF03Mbs4J=9JMiuy=-W9wZ_7@mail.gmail.com>
References: <mailman.0.1287860561.4921.help-whatwg.org@lists.whatwg.org>
	<4CC600D4.40808@agrabush.com>
	<AANLkTinRXGi8U4Y+ddLFzF03Mbs4J=9JMiuy=-W9wZ_7@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinu6207aoK4UfgdwoLvOgv-hW9J-GmnF4SNQgjb@mail.gmail.com>

I prefer separate tags, because is more easily to style

<label for="full_name">Full Name:</label>
<input name="full_name" id="full_name" type="text" />

The "for" of label is linked with "id" of input, and not the "name"

--
Renatho De Carli Rosa
www.grifotecnologia.com.br


2010/10/26 Paul Arzul <paul.arzul at gmail.com>

> On 26 October 2010 00:12, Herman Hassel <herman at agrabush.com> wrote:
> > On 23.10.2010 21:02, help-request at lists.whatwg.org wrote:
> >
> > We'd be happy to get some feedback on this way of doing forms, if anyone
> has
> > a better idea when it comes to the semantics.
>
> You can nest the input in the label.
>
>
> > <form>
> >     <fileset>
> >         <legend>Personal Info</legend>
> >         <div>
> >             <label for="full_name">Full Name:</label>
> >             <input name="full_name" type="text" />
> >         </div>
> >         <div>
> >             <label for="full_address">Full Address</label>
> >             <input name="full_address" type="text" />
> >         </div>
> >     </fieldset>
>
> <legend>Personal Info</legend>
>    <label>Full Name: <input></label>
>    <label>Full Address: <input></label>
> ...
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/help-whatwg.org/attachments/20101026/2b890d44/attachment-0002.htm>

From nicholas.stephan at gmail.com  Tue Oct 26 09:58:19 2010
From: nicholas.stephan at gmail.com (Nicholas Stephan)
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 09:58:19 -0700
Subject: [html5] Radio Button Size
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTik6QhgjGQGEF-=Q2LVkc9BaM2pnB=U=xq+rubXx@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTimBPHid8iwm3j3yyfaHLcc88gL67LTMzLfOz2PF@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTik6QhgjGQGEF-=Q2LVkc9BaM2pnB=U=xq+rubXx@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <0E557B09-EEA1-44E3-B560-BE36F23D5FC3@gmail.com>

Webkit and Mozilla also have the CSS attributes -webkit-appearance and -moz-appearance. Setting these to none will remove the default OS styling and give more control to the CSS. Of course, there's no hope for IE.




On Oct 26, 2010, at 4:35 AM, Diego Perini <diego.perini at gmail.com> wrote:

> I am not sure this can help, not sure either it is the right way to do
> it by using CSS rules, however:
> 
>   <input type="radio" style="width: 64px; height: 64px; zoom: 2;">
> 
> in my tests, webkit based browsers can use the "zoom" property while
> Firefox will do with "width/height" properties.
> 
> Webkit does a real zoom of the radio button, while Firefox is just
> stretching the pixels and anti-aliasing them (bad result).
> 
> 
> Diego
> 
> 
> On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 8:55 AM, Jason Gross
> <jasongross9+html5 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Is there a way to change the size of a radio button without resorting to
>> using images?  If not, should a way to do this without javascript become
>> proposed as part of the standard?
>> Thanks.
>> -Jason
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Help mailing list
>> Help at lists.whatwg.org
>> http://lists.whatwg.org/listinfo.cgi/help-whatwg.org
>> 
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> Help mailing list
> Help at lists.whatwg.org
> http://lists.whatwg.org/listinfo.cgi/help-whatwg.org


