- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 19:50:36 +0200
- To: Ben 'Cerbera' Millard <cerbera@projectcerbera.com>
- Cc: public-pfwg-comments@w3.org
> If a tree is structured with the HTML elements for nested lists, > namely <ul> > and <li>, these attributes become redundant? > > * setsize is available by counting the <li> at the current level. > * posinset is available by counting the <li> at the current level up > to and > including the current <li>. Indeed, setsize/posinset don't appear to have a very HTML-like design. I can think of two cases where counting the number of child elements of the container is not enough: 1) Paged views (e.g. showing 20 messages of a mailbox containing thousands of messages and having only the 20 items in the DOM) 2) Tree grids implemented as <table>s where some rows should not participate in the top level item count. In both cases, I can think of a more author-friendly and HTML-like design. In case #1, the container element needs two attributes: start and total. The position in set for a given item would be start + the number of previous element siblings. If start < 1 or missing, assume 1. (One-based start as opposed to zero-based offset is consistent with <ol start>.) The attribute total gives the set size. If missing or if start + number of element children in the container - 1 > total, use start + number of element children in the container - 1 instead. In case #2, rows in <thead> and <tfoot> should be ignored for the count as well as rows flagged as subrows. -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Friday, 28 March 2008 17:51:20 UTC