Re: BUTTON element

Steve Cheng (steve@elmert.ipoline.com)
Thu, 17 Jul 1997 15:44:11 -0400 (EDT)


Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 15:44:11 -0400 (EDT)
From: Steve Cheng <steve@elmert.ipoline.com>
To: Douglas Rand <drand@sgi.com>
cc: "Chris Wilson (PSD)" <cwilso@MICROSOFT.com>,
Subject: Re: BUTTON element
In-Reply-To: <33CE6F08.3F54@sgi.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.96.970717153734.410A-100000@elmert>

On Thu, 17 Jul 1997, Douglas Rand wrote:

> I don't get it.  If the element is a pressable BUTTON,  then why bend
> over backwards to hide this?  Even in an interface rendered for the
> blind,  the functionality of the element is going to exist (albeit in a
> different form).  I don't see anything wrong with BUTTON.  If you want
> something more general,  have a container tag called CONTROL with a
> TYPE= to get the semantics of the control.  It could be like INPUT
> except for being a container.

This leads me to think why HTML 2.0 had things such as

<INPUT TYPE=radio ...>

which would be media-dependent. Of course it wouldn't be a smart move to
redefine these attributes. CONTROL would be nice, because the element
doesn't have to be presented as buttons even in GUI browsers. On the other
hand, TYPE=checkbox sort of implies something to be checked, not necessarily
a "box". Whether CONTROL is displayed as a button or something else might be
left up to CSS.

--
Steve Cheng
elmert@ipoline.com
http://www.ipoline.com/~elmert/