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

Re: HEADERS, FOR whom - any ID?

From: Robert Burns <rob@robburns.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 21:03:55 -0500
Message-Id: <67EA520F-1B50-4EC0-9BCF-5126E3F4D9B6@robburns.com>
Cc: <public-html@w3.org>
To: Sander Tekelenburg <st@isoc.nl>

On Aug 8, 2007, at 7:45 PM, Sander Tekelenburg wrote:

> At 18:57 -0500 UTC, on 2007-08-08, Robert Burns wrote:
>> On Aug 8, 2007, at 5:59 PM, Sander Tekelenburg wrote:
> [...]
>> Perhaps the attribute belongs on the FIELDSET element too. I'm still
>> trying to think through the structure.
> Could be useful to be allowed to set it on <fieldset>, yes.  
> Provided it can
> be overridden per individual label.

Agreed. That would make for a flexible approach.

> [... <label>blah<control1><control2></label>]
>>> I'm just wondering how the UA might convey that. Which of the two
>>> controls should be activated when the label is 'clicked'? Or should
>>> it not activate but do something else?
>> [...] For other controls, I don't think
>> clicking activates so much as focuses.
> Agreed. I shouldn't have said "activate".
>> In that case it could just
>> focus on the first of the controls.
> But then you'd need to keep @for or else you'd break 'my' use case  
> where the
> label really make much more sense to refer to the last control.

The issue of focus is separate from that of the semantics of this  
composite control. The label labels both control elements.. However,  
the focus goes to the initial field (it could even be set by tab  
order rather than logical order for more control).

So I don't think there's a problem there. I was thinking that your  
use-case/example  that the label was tightly involved with both  
controls. Also it's relation/association is in an order dependent  
manner so that "whose name" needs to be followed by the first control  
(SELECT) to select "contains" or "is" and then the text INPUT. Those  
two controls seem inseparable in a way that the label really does  
apply to the two of them working together. If we imagine it as a  
sentence with the SELECT text removed it doesn't make sense anymore.

  whose name "a string"
rather than
   whose name contains "a string"

I know this isn't necessarily valid HTML4  or XHTML1, but your use- 
case definitely demonstrates a need for this type of semantic.

Take care,
[1]: Original example:
	<input name="submit" type="submit" value="Show systems">
	 <label>whose name
		<select id="NameBool" name="NameIsContains">
			<option value="contains" selected>contains</option>
			<option value="is">is</option>
		<input id="NameString" type="text" name="name" size="12" value="">

Received on Thursday, 9 August 2007 02:04:21 UTC

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