W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > March 2015

Re: Form element dependencies

From: sisbluesteel <sisbluesteel@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 21:32:23 +0200
Message-ID: <55130D47.4080605@aol.com>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:46:12 UTC