W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > April 2008

Re: Radio and checkbox texts

From: Jukka K. Korpela <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 13:32:14 +0300
Message-ID: <015e01c8a52d$4c8bc980$0500000a@DOCENDO>
To: <www-html@w3.org>

David Dorward wrote:

> On 23 Apr 2008, at 09:22, Anas R. wrote:
>> Don't you think that
>> <input type="radio">option1</input>
>> could be better than:
>> <input type="radio" />option1
>
> No, I don't.

Neither do I, but partly on different grounds.

> it is inconsistent with HTML 4,

Any change from HTML 4 is inconsistent with HTML 4

> inconsistent with what current
> browsers support,

Not really. They just ignore the </input> tag.

> inconsistent with how other inputs work,

That's just because _all_ input elements are poorly designed. They were 
basically designed as commands, not elements. This is directly reflected 
by the fact that most of them are empty (i.e., have EMPTY declared 
content); for an explanation of this, see
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/html/empty.html#fields
where I suggest that the _logical_ structure would be to make the 
_initial value_ the content of any input element, like we now have for 
textarea.

> and less
> flexible than <input type="radio" id="foo"><label for="foo">option1</
> label>.

Which is a small monstrosity, requiring pointless invention and use of 
identifiers. The logical structure would be to put the input field and 
its label inside a container, roughly as you can say
<label><input type="radio" name="x" value="1">option1</label>
at present, but the element namel "label" is quite illogical. (E.g. 
"field" would be better.)


Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/ 
Received on Wednesday, 23 April 2008 10:32:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:16:13 GMT