- From: sisbluesteel <sisbluesteel@aol.com>
- Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 21:32:23 +0200
- To: Cameron Jones <cmhjones@gmail.com>, Andrea Rendine <master.skywalker.88@gmail.com>
- CC: chaals@yandex-team.ru, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
All right then, There seems to be a sort of consensus on how this should be implemented. How would the actual proposition be done to get this feature implemented in HTML? On 17.03.2015 15:36, Cameron Jones wrote: > 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 Wednesday, 25 March 2015 19:32:54 UTC