[whatwg] Suggestion: Implementation of Tabbed Forms
lachlan.hunt at iinet.net.au
Wed Jun 30 07:34:53 PDT 2004
Matthew Raymond wrote:
> That would be fine, except that the name "category" may be to
> specific. For instance, the sections could be grouped by stages or
Fair enough. Perhaps a name that better represents what Ian Hickson
calls them: mutually exclusive sections, which, BTW, is quite a good
> The sections may even be indistinguishable from each other
> except for the fact that they are in different sections...
This has confused me, I'm don't understand what you mean.
> Perhaps <group> and <groupset> would be better...
Maybe, but the term "group" doesn't really seem to be any more
semantic than <div>. The name should be semantic enough to accurately
describe it's purpose, so as to avoid abuse (as much as possible) by the
millions of HTML terrorist currently employed as web
developers/destroyers, yet generic enough so as not to specify too much
about it's presentation.
> ...still a problem. <category> and <categoryset> elements
> would degrade to nothing in IE 6.0... styling would not show up.
So what? That will happen with any new element introduced.
Internet-explorer-operability is only needed to the extent that IE users
can still access the content and use the application. Also, it seems
likely that scripting may be used to simulate behaviors and styling in
IE and other non-WF2 user agents... For example, I'm working on a
script right now that can generate a date picker control, for use with
<input type="datetime"/>, as well as parsing and generating ISO 8601
compliant dates (since ECMAScript doesn't natively support them) — I
might have that done in a few weeks, if I can find some spare time to
fit everything in.
> Perhaps we should introduce a semantically based |type| attribute to
> <div> to specify relationships between contained elements:
> <div type="groupset" id="firefox-options">
> <div type="group">
No, as I , and Anne van Kesteren  wrote previously, the type
attribute should not be used for anything except specifying the content
type of an external resource and the control type for input elements.
> Perhaps it would be helpful if you started a separate thread stating
> your objections to specific items in WF2 you consider corruptions of
> the semantics in HTML. If there are more semantically correct
> solutions to be found that accomplish the same tasks as existing
> portions of the spec, please bring them to our attention.
Will do, If and when I can find time between completing my personal
website, rebuilding the website for my work, completing that date
control/ISO 8601 parser script, keeping up with all the emails from this
list, W3C lists, newsgroups, blogs, while still fitting in every other
daily task I need to do; I'll eventually get on to reading the WF2 spec
in full and working out exactly what's good and bad about it, So, don't
expect much from me any time soon, but I will try.
> Then extending semantic grouping and adding properties to CSS to
> style the new semantic elements, as above, should cause no problem.
That would be perfect!
lachlan.hunt at lachy.id.au
More information about the whatwg