W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > August 2004

[whatwg] [web-apps] Some comments

From: Anne van Kesteren <fora@annevankesteren.nl>
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2004 19:05:16 +0200
Message-ID: <4111174C.9000606@annevankesteren.nl>
>> 2.1. Tutorial
>> 
>> The only problem I have with this is that mixing inline, A, and
>> block level, MENU, elements looks a bit wrong. I don't really have
>> suggestions yet on how to change this, but I think it is worth
>> looking into.
> 
> I couldn't really find a better way to do it. I'm open to
> suggestions.

The only thing I can currently think of is some wrapper element, but 
that would bloat the document and doesn't have any big advantages. 
Perhaps only some structural advantages.


>> 2.2.5.1. Using the command element to define a command
>> 
>> The attribute TYPE should be renamed. TYPE should only be used for
>> media types (MIME types), like |type="text/css"|.
> 
> <button> and <input> elements both have type="" attributes, seems
> like <command> is just the same kind of thing, no? Especially since
> <command>'s values are just a subset of <input>'s.
> 
> Why would "type" only be for MIME types, and why would this
> convention be stronger than the convention of consistency with
> <input> and <button>?

Never mind that comment. I was probably still thinking of XHTML 2.0, 
which doesn't have this kind of (Web) Forms at all...


>> 2.3.1. The menu element
>> 
>> Why not use NL from XHTML 2.0? Because MENU existed in some older 
>> version of HTML and NL doesn't work as expected (the same)?
> 
> Basically, yeah. Also, <menu> is a nicer tag name than <nl>, and this
> doesn't only have to be for navigation. And <menu> has the right
> rendering in legacy UAs.

Looks logical.


>> 2.3.2.1. Displaying menu bars inline
>> 
>> # xh|menubar > xh|a[href], xh|menubar > xh|li > xh|a[href] { ... }
>> 
>> Why not use ':link' and ':visited'. It is longer, but probably more
>>  appropriate. (In Mozilla and maybe other browsers things like 
>> ':-moz-any-link' can be used.)
> 
> Because :link would also match, say, XLinks, and <area> elements, and
> other kinds of links, none of which are, in this context, supposed
> to look like the <a> elements in question.

Agreed.


-- 
  Anne van Kesteren
  <http://annevankesteren.nl/>
Received on Wednesday, 4 August 2004 10:05:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:58:36 UTC