- From: Cameron Jones <cmhjones@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 13:36:48 +0000
- To: Andrea Rendine <master.skywalker.88@gmail.com>
- Cc: chaals@yandex-team.ru, sisbluesteel <sisbluesteel@aol.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 4:12 PM, Andrea Rendine <master.skywalker.88@gmail.com> wrote: > The idea is quite good and as I said before it allows authors building forms > which not only display/hide some elements when unnecessary (i.e. when they > depend on other elements which haven't been selected), but in such a way > that form validation applies nonetheless. > > Just one note: > 1. maybe a brand-new attribute name should be used. @for is already > specified on label and output elements with very different meanings, so I > believe it would be too much. I'm not sure that a new attribute would add any value over putting @for to use where there currently is none. The use of @for on <label> and <output> is that of building associations between elements which i think is the same use case albeit with specific semantics based on the checked/selected-ness of the field. I think the question to validate this idea is - what else could @for be used for on inputs if not this use case? > 2. maybe elements or fieldsets could depend also on <option> elements inside > a <select>? Or would it be too difficult/useless? Yes, i think this is definitely a good idea. It would allow field/sets to be enabled for specific options. Cameron
Received on Tuesday, 17 March 2015 13:37:16 UTC