W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > July 1997

Re: BUTTON element

From: Steve Cheng <steve@elmert.ipoline.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 15:44:11 -0400 (EDT)
To: Douglas Rand <drand@sgi.com>
cc: "Chris Wilson (PSD)" <cwilso@MICROSOFT.com>, "'Lee Daniel Crocker'" <lee@piclab.com>, walter@natural-innovations.com, www-html@w3.org, www-style@w3.org
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
Received on Thursday, 17 July 1997 15:46:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:26:44 UTC