W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > July 2003

forms terminology in CSS3 Basic UI

From: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 10:38:14 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030731103754.0272ccb0@pop.iamdigex.net>
To: www-style@w3.org



[individual comment, not reviewed in PF group.]

General Reference:

http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-ui/

1. :out-of-range

In

  3.1.3. :in-range and :out-of-range
  http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-ui/#pseudo-range

there appears to be a mis-use of XForms terminology.

Where it says

<quote
cite="http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-ui/#pseudo-range">

    v... In summary: an element is
    :out-of-range when it does not accurately reflect the state of the
    model.

</quote>

..should it not say "the state of the instance"?  Suggest you cross-check 
with XForms.

A possible re-wording of the whole paragraph would be:

<draft
class="possible clearer">

The :in-range and :out-of-range pseudo-classes are defined with respect to the
limitations of the rendered or concrete interface, as opposed to the :valid
and :invalid pseudo-classes defined above which reflect the logical limitations
imposed by the application or business logic through the model.

A rendered element is :out-of-range when the value in the bound instance that
it should display is beyond its capability to display.  For example, a slider
which can show values from 1-10 when the value in the instance is 11 would
have :out-of-range true and :in-range false.

</draft>

2. What's a form element?

<quote
cite="http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-ui/#pseudo-required-value">

     3.1.4. :required and :optional

    A form element is :required or :optional if a value for it is,
    respectively, required or optional before the form it belongs to is
    submitted. Elements that are not form elements are neither required
    nor optional. This spec does not defined what is a form element.

</quote>

The last two sentences taken together form a semantic hole in the 
specification.  This will lead to semantically-incompatible use by 
different users and implementers and the feature will become disreputable 
and will be avoided in practice.  Unsuitable in a specification.

Consider instead:

Cite specifically the items in the XForms schema and HTML specification
which have the intended semantics, and extrapolate gracefully from there.

Say things like

processors MUST recognize the following conditions as :required and :optional
where the XForms schema applies:...

processors MUST recognize the following conditions as :required and 
:optional where HTML 4.01 semantics applies by specification:...

processors MAY recognize these pseudo-classes in formats which use clearly
equivalent semantics

processors SHOULD NOT recognize either :required or :optional in the absence of
any of these conditions.

Al
Received on Thursday, 31 July 2003 12:44:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:22 GMT