W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2007

Re: HEADERS, FOR whom - any ID?

From: Sander Tekelenburg <st@isoc.nl>
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 01:57:08 +0200
Message-Id: <p0624061ec2deaca04ce4@[]>
To: <public-html@w3.org>

At 14:27 -0500 UTC, on 2007-08-07, Robert Burns wrote:


> As I said, I support the inclusion of @for for backwards
> compatibility reasons. The thread, as I understood it, was about
> forward looking approaches that were mostly designed to fix a
> presentation and not a semantic issue. This to me point to a
> deficiency in the presentation mechanism (such as CSS) and not in the
> semantic language such as HTML (just applying our separation of
> concerns design principle here). If the presentation was handled
> suitably, I cannot think of any need to not simply enclose a control
> inside a label or enclose the label inside the control.

Having the label on either side of a control is not always presentational. It
may sometimes be, but at other times it may well be logical. Look at
<http://webrepair.org/strategy/known%20systems#filter> for instance. The
first fieldset contains two controls. It's not possible to have a label apply
to multiple controls, so without @for, the only way to have that label apply
to the second control would be to change the content. (Might be possible, but
I've broken my head over this one and couldn't come up with a sensible
solution. Many other authors will bother much less.)

So unless a new solution solves this use case better, @for remains needed.
Not just for backwards compatiblity.

Sander Tekelenburg
The Web Repair Initiative: <http://webrepair.org/>
Received on Tuesday, 7 August 2007 23:58:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:25 UTC