[whatwg] Menus, fallback, and backwards compatibility: ideas wanted
ian at hixie.ch
Wed Dec 7 16:00:26 PST 2005
On Wed, 7 Dec 2005, Matthew Raymond wrote:
> > <menu>
> > <command .../>
> > <command .../>
> > <command .../>
> > </menu>
> Doesn't the following do the same?
> <option label="1"/>
> <option label="2"/>
> <option label="3"/>
It does if we say it does.
Why would we do this? I don't really want to add a lot of new attributes
to <option>; it would overload <option> and that element is already having
plenty enough fun with <select>, <optgroup>, <datalist>, form submission,
"am i control or am i not" schizophrenia, etc.
> We can just use <option> elements instead of <command> when we need to
> hide menus. If we're going to support <select> elements as menu fallback
> markup, <menu> will have to support <option> elements anyways. This
> frees up <command> to be used specifically in the <head>.
I don't see any reason why <command> can't be used in the head anyway.
Basically I think the way that <menu> will have to support <option> is
separate and distinct from the way that it will have to support other
commands. I don't expect <option> to support everything that <command>
might. Do you disagree?
> Sort of. I'm leaning towards having all elements but <option> nested
> in an <li> element, though.
Yeah, I'm just worried that people are going to want more flexible
fallback than a bulleted list though (notwithstanding the fact that you
can use CSS to change the presentation).
> It just seems to have better semantics, and it also allows you to use
> multiple elements to build a menu item, like having an <img>, a <input
> type="checkbox"> and a <label> in the same <li> to create a menu item
> with a checkbox and an icon.
Oh I certainly agree that we want to allow <li>.
> > Not quite sure how to get the label for nested <menu> elements yet.
> I fail to see what's wrong with using the activation of <menulabel> to
> display menus.
I dunno, it's just ugly. I wasn't really happy with it when I first put it
in the spec and the more I look at it the less I like it. (See also
earlier mail about this.)
> Part of the benefit of [menulabel] is the ability to call menus that are
> outside the <menubar>:
Yes, we want to keep that functionality. There might be neater ways to do
this than <menulabel for="">, though. Maybe even <menu def=""/> or
> For toolbars, something similar to <menubar> that takes <button> or
> <menulabel> children seems in order. I prefer doing this as opposed to
> <menu type="menutype">, especially since <input type="[type]"> has
> receive some resistance.
So the main problem with <input type=""> is that one element is used for
things that need to be implemented in fundamentally different ways.
The proposal with <menu> is not as bad. Specifically, we have these cases:
* <menu> is dumb (can just be styled by CSS).
* <menu> is hidden.
* <menu> is replaced by a toolbar.
In addition, any <menu> can be used to generate a native menu. This isn't
something relevant to <menu> itself, though -- much like the fact that you
can generate an outline from <h1>s, etc, is not really that relevant to
the <h1> elements themselves.
> It also creates specific elements they have to support rather than
> attribute values, which makes it harder for vendors to falsely claim
The solution to that problem is test suites, not compromises in language
> I think it also increases visibility.
Not sure what you mean here.
> Thought: Is the distinction between a menubar and a toolbar entirely
> presentational? Use one element? <commandbar>?
I don't think there is any difference at all between <menubar> and
<toolbar>, really, hence wanting to just use <menu>.
> Not sure I like the whole thing about the user agent guessing it's a
> menu based on if it has a label or is connected to a context menu
> reference. Might just be able to fix that by requiring the |label|
> attribute. Then again, it seems like it's doing what could be done with
> the |title| attribute.
> Perhaps an attribute |type| with the possible values "menu" and "list",
> where "list" is the default.
> Then again, toolbars often have separators, so maybe they're a type of
> list anyways and require <li>-type markup, thus making <menu type> more
> appropriate. Hmm...
<hr> is our separator element. Not sure what it stands for exactly. "Here
is a separatoR", maybe. *cough*
> Above, the type "menu" is assumed to be a sort of context menu activated
> either by a true context menu feature or by a <menulabel>. Then again,
> <commandbar>-type elements are flat, and while they may have
> groupings/separators (for toolbars, at least), they don't have
> multilevel groupings.
They kind of do, in some contexts, e.g. drop-down buttons.
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
More information about the whatwg