[whatwg] Web Forms 2.0 Feedback
mpt at myrealbox.com
Wed Dec 8 22:23:23 PST 2004
On 9 Dec, 2004, at 4:43 AM, Matthew Raymond wrote:
> Matthew Thomas wrote:
>> On 8 Dec, 2004, at 3:19 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
>>> (One of the main reasons I haven't yet specified the tree control in
>>> the Web Apps draft is that I can't work out how to make it support
>>> the basic things a tree control needs to support while still having
>>> some sort of backwards-compatibility story, btw.)
>> <select id="wiblet" initialsort="flavor">
>> <sh data="Name">
> I notice you have a lot of elements there that imitate the elements
> for tables. Why not just use <table> as a basis for this instead of
> | <table>
> | <colgroup>
> | <col usetree id="col_name"/>
Because, while more elegant, that doesn't have "some sort of
backwards-compatibility story". I click on it, it does nothing.
> Currently, WA1 only defines <menu> as being a HTML5 menu when it's
> inside a <menubar>, so all a UA has to do is look for the proper
> parent element. Otherwise, the current specification treats <menu> the
> exact same way as HTML 4.01. Because of this, there is no need for a
> doctype with respect to menus.
>> Even if goodwill was irrelevant, if you made HTML semantically
>> complete enough to drop <div>, I guarantee you would have added too
>> many block elements for authors to choose the correct one anything
>> like most of the time. <div>, <b>, <i>, <sup>, <sub>, and <span>
>> might be presentational tofu, but they keep HTML from being too
>> complex, and that's important.
> The elements <sup> and <sub> are not entire presentational. For
> example, how do you represent a chemical formula in HTML? If a title
> has a power at the end, how do you indicate that? Granted, they have a
> presentational component to them, but that presentation itself has a
> semantic meaning.
Exactly the same applies to <b> and <i> as to <sup> and <sub>. They're
usually used to mean *something*, but a computer can't tell what it is.
More information about the whatwg