[whatwg] Suggestion: Implementation of Tabbed Forms

Joost Smit joost at talyn.student.utwente.nl
Mon Jun 28 17:20:34 PDT 2004

Lachlan Hunt wrote:

>   No!  Tabs are a presentational, not structural, and thus should not 
>be included in (X)HTML, or any other semantic markup language.
I don't know for sure, tabs can be both structural and presentational i 
The discussion was whether or not to include in the form specification. 
At least, that's what i understand from the original post.
Matthew Raymond suggested to implement a tabbed form using <fieldset> 
and <form>, while of course, you can do it in normal html too.
I think what Matthew meant is that when you define it a standard 
(although you can do it in html) it's easier to use.

Btw....in the webform specification : (under 1.5 Missing features) it 
says the following :
"Elements or properties to create a "tabbed" or "wizard" interface. This 
need will be addressed in a separate specification."

That's exactly how i feel about this, it doesn't belong in the webforms 
2.0 specification, and I think it can be a useful extension of another 

>>Something like a number of div's where there's always one visible, and 
>>the rest automatically hidden.
>   There are already methods available that do exactly this, which 
>remain accessible with either or both CSS and JS unavailable.  For example:
>  * http://www.alistapart.com/d/eatcake/5.html
I know, but like i said above, People will use things more when they are 
easier to code. The example on a list apart isn't particular easy, so 
it's not something most people would use.
I'm sure if it can be done easy, it will be used. That's a big deal of 
the whole WHATwg specifications i think. Most of the proposed form 
controls can be done with html/javascript/php and whatever method you 
choose. But it will be a lot easier with this new specification.


More information about the whatwg mailing list