W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-forms@w3.org > April 2014

Re: Inconsistent description of attributes on <label> etc.

From: Erik Bruchez <erik@bruchez.org>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 09:36:07 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAc0PEUA+dstRUUwGT2j0LXL7o4o-2iCDL0uv90+WP5Lb4WWNA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Steven Pemberton <Steven.Pemberton@cwi.nl>, public-forms@w3.org
>> 1. Should <alert> support @appearance at all?
>
> That one. The current spec has it as the only one of the 4 that does not
> support @appearance, and I can't think why not. An oversight?
> https://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/wiki/XForms_2.0#ui-commonelems-alert

I would say so.

>> 2. Or should <alert appearance="minimal"> mean the same thing as for
>> <label> and <hint>?
>
> No; if we include it, it should just be the same.

What I meant is that it's one thing to say that an element supports
@appearance, and another to specify what a specific value of
@appearance, such as `minimal` should do.

I would say that yes, <alert> should support `appearance`.

But I am not sure it makes much sense to show an alert as an HTML
placeholder, which means that maybe we shouldn't say anything about
`<alert appearance="minimal">`.

But it doesn't mean that @appearance shouldn't be allowed as an
attribute, as other values of @appearance, including custom ones, can
make sense.

-Erik
Received on Thursday, 10 April 2014 16:36:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:14:10 UTC