[whatwg] Menus and Toolbars
ash at ashleysheridan.co.uk
Wed Nov 28 14:50:28 PST 2012
There is a hack that allows css to handle clicks using hidden checkboxes and adjacent :checked siblings. Its not terribly suited for menu-type behavior though.
Fred Andrews <fredandw at live.com> wrote:
>Thank you opening a discussion about these interactive elements. It
>would be disappointing to see these abandoned, for those who would like
>I would note that CSS alone is able to implement styled menus but only
>for 'hover to activate' and not for 'click to activate'. Might there
>be an alternative approach using a 'click to toggle' property on
>elements that might allow CSS alone to implement click activated menus
>> Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 00:12:08 +0000
>> From: ian at hixie.ch
>> To: whatwg at whatwg.org
>> CC: jackalmage at gmail.com; dglazkov at chromium.org; tkent at chromium.org;
>rniwa at webkit.org; eoconnor at apple.com; koivisto at iki.fi;
>jan.varga at gmail.com; adele at apple.com; jonlee at apple.com;
>simonp at opera.com; hsivonen at iki.fi; jgraham at opera.com;
>mounir at lamouri.fr; jonas at sicking.cc; ojan at chromium.org
>> Subject: [whatwg] Menus and Toolbars
>> (If you're cc'ed, your opinion likely affects implementations of this
>> so your input is especially requested. See the question at the end.
>> reply to this, please strip the cc list as the mailing list software
>> otherwise block your post for having too many cc's. Thanks.)
>> There's a big section in the spec that tries to do three things:
>> * context menus
>> * toolbars
>> * menu buttons
>> Right now it's not implemented by anyone, though Firefox has a
>> This section has two big problems:
>> 1. Styling of toolbars and menu buttons is just not defined.
>> Toolbars could be a purely stylistic issue, to be solved either
>> by CSS, or CSS plus a component/widget binding model (whatever
>> end up with for that).
>> Menu buttons are a real widget, though, so we can't just leave them
>> styling of <div>s, there needs to be some real styling going on.
>> now, because of the algorithm mentioned in #2 below, this is very
>> complicated. I'll get back to this.
>> (Styling for context menus is not a big deal, they just use native
>> 2. Nobody is implementing it, in particular, the algorithm that
>> HTML elements into a menu structure seems unpopular.
>> Right now, the spec has this algorithm that defines how to map
>> HTML semantics to a context menu or menu button (or toolbar, though
>> latter is less important if we move to a pure-CSS rendering model for
>> toolbars, since we'd just drop the algorithm for them then).
>> effects of existing semantics. For example, if you want a menu button
>> which acts as a navigation mechanism, you just put <a> elements in
>> markup and they automatically get turned into menu items.
>> There's also a generic <command> element for when you don't need an
>> existing element to be used. Firefox essentially only implements
>> though it's called <menuitem> in Firefox. <command> also supports an
>> attribute that points at other elements to indirectly define
>> To move forward on this, here are some proposals:
>> #1: Drop <menu> and all related features. I don't think we should do
>> but if we can't get agreement on what to implement, this is the only
>> option left, so it's on the table.
>> #2: A design that supports context menus and menu buttons using
>> markup, with support for indirect defining of commands.
>> First, we make <menu type=""> take three values: "toolbar", which
>> means to render the element using CSS (the default value for legacy
>> too), and "context" and "button", which define menus. "context" menus
>> would be hidden by default, "button" menus would render as a button,
>> which, when clicked, shows the menu. contextmenu="" can be used to
>> to a <menu type=contextmenu>.
>> The <menu> element in "context" and "button" modes would only have
>> elements as descendants: <menuitem> elements, <menu> elements, and
>> elements. (Or maybe no <hr>s, and we do separators by using groups of
>> <menu> elements without labels.) Other children are ignored.
>> <menuitem> elements would just have a label="" attribute and,
>> a command="" attribute. The command="" attribute would work as it
>> the spec now, deferring to some existing element. When the menu item
>> selected, it would fire click on the <menuitem>, and then as a
>> action do whatever the action of the command="" is, if specified. (We
>> talk about whether to bother supporting icons in the <menuitem>, and
>> how, especially given high-res screens, but that's a minor detail.)
>> With type=button, CSS would apply to the <menu> and <menuitem>
>> maybe with a limited set of properties applying. Long term, we look
>> or Web components or whatever for styling.
>> We drop <command> entirely.
>> #2a: Same as #2, except we keep <command> as a way to introduce
>> without using existing elements.
>> #3: We forget the non-JS case; so, the same as #2, but <menuitem>
>> get a command="" attribute. We add radio menu items, checkbox menu
>> and the like, over time, as features on <menuitem>. (Defined much
>> <command> has some of them defined today.)
>> #4: We do what the spec has now.
>> #5: We do what the spec has now, except we change the type=toolbar to
>> be rendered in CSS (and remove type=list, making toolbar the
>> #6: Your idea here.
>> So, implementors: Which of these would you be willing to implement?
>> there constraints I've not thought of? Are there features that we
>> deal with that I haven't mentioned above? Are there use cases that we
>> should just abandon that could simplify the solution drastically?
>> Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``.
>> http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._
>> Things that are impossible just take longer.
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
More information about the whatwg