- From: Matthew Raymond <mattraymond@earthlink.net>
- Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 21:22:51 -0400
- To: John Boyer <boyerj@ca.ibm.com>
- CC: public-appformats@w3.org
John Boyer wrote: > > Hi Dave, > > This is a good start. > > I was also thinking that inputs should allow optional use of 'name' > attribute instead of ref *and* label. This would allow implicit creation > of a 'flat' data structure. There's no point of deliberately discarding the <label> element in (X)HTML. If there's no <label> for the element, then you could use the |name| attribute as an unofficial label for general processing, but it shouldn't replace <label> in the sense that it's used in HTML right now. Also, <label> inside <input> should be avoided. Web authors may see that <input> has a close tag and assume that the contents are actually the control value, similar to <textarea>, so having the <label> inside is counterintuitive. > Then, I was thinking that an input could also use a value attribute > (content string, not XPath) to indicate initial value of the named node > in the implicit flat data model. > > The point is that this: > > <input name="Name" value="John"/> > > would do the same thing as an XForm today would do with > > <xf:model> > <xf:instance xmlns=""> > <data> > <Name>John</Name> > </data> > </xf:instance> > </xf:model> > > <xf:input ref="Name"> > <xf:label>Name</xf:label> > </xf:input> +1, although I'd like to state again that we still need HTML <label> elements for fallback. | <form [...]> | <label>Enter your name: | <input name="Name" value="John"/> | </label> | </form> Hmm. Now that I think of it, UI labels are not the same as labels for individuals units in a data model. I strongly advocate keeping form for backwards compatibility. It can be safely ignored when its XForms equivalent is present.
Received on Wednesday, 6 September 2006 01:23:25 UTC