- From: Matthew Raymond <mattraymond@earthlink.net>
- Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 09:57:57 -0400
Ian Hickson wrote:
> At the moment the spec says it would be:
>
> <switch>
> <section>
> <h1>Exclusive Section 1</h1>
> </section>
> <section>
> <h1>Exclusive Section 2</h1>
> </section>
> </switch>
I presume there is a mechanism for selecting a specific section. If
so, would there be markup that would serve a function similar to a VB
tabstrip? Will there be a markup solution to selecting a section?
Perhaps something like this:
<tabstrip>
<tabs>
<tab for="section1"><a href="#section1">Section 1</a></tab>
<tab for="section2"><a href="#section1">Section 2</a></tab>
<tab for="section3"><a href="#section1">Section 3</a></tab>
</tabs>
<switch>
<section id="section1">
...Stuff for Section 1...
</section>
<section id="section2">
...Stuff for Section 2...
</section>
<section id="section3">
...Stuff for Section 3...
</section>
</switch>
</tabstrip>
Note that <a> elements will be ignored in the <tab> elements, and
are there solely for graceful degradation.
> I don't really like the name "switch", but it is what SVG and XForms have
> and it seems better than the alternatives I've considered (thanks to
> everyone who suggested these, by the way):
>
> <blockgroup>
Not bad, but it fails to communicate the fact that only one block is
visible at a time.
> <card>
> <cardLayout>
What's a card? I get the deck metaphor, but only because I've seen
the XUL element <deck>, which I think is the closest thing XUL has to
your <switch> example.
> <exblock>
> <exgroup>
Not clear enough.
> <flip>
> <mebc>
I don't even know what these are supposed to mean.
MEBC = Mutually Exclusive Block Container???
> <mutex>
Programmers would probably like this one, but others wouldn't
understand.
> <mutexgroup>
Suffers from the same problem as above, plus it's longer.
> <mutgroup>
Not as long, but most people don't know what a mutex is, let alone
an abbreviation of it.
> <mutuallyExclusiveblockContainer>
Ah, that answers that question.
> <mxsection>
> <mxsections>
Cool names, but people won't know what they are.
> <page>
> <pages>
I actually kinda like the page metaphor. I presume there is a reason
you rejected this? (Other than the obvious fact that the idea of pages
within pages of an HTML document is a little strange.)
> <stack>
XUL has a <stack> element, while the function of what we're trying
to create here is much more like XUL's <deck>.
> <stateset>
Just because you only see one section at a time doesn't mean they're
states, so this name strikes me as slightly misleading.
> <tab>
> <tabs>
I'm thinking that there should be separate markup for the mutually
exclusive sections and the means of accessing the pages. That said, I do
think there should be markup for the means of accessing pages, like my
<tabstrip> example.
> <widget>
???
> <wizard>
See comments on <tabs>.
> The second choice after <switch> is currently <stateset>, but both
> seem a bit geeky.
Perhaps we should use <deck> and <card> together, like this:
<tabstrip>
<tabs>
<tab for="section1"><a href="#section1">Section 1</a></tab>
<tab for="section2"><a href="#section1">Section 2</a></tab>
<tab for="section3"><a href="#section1">Section 3</a></tab>
</tabs>
<deck>
<card id="section1"> ...Stuff for Section 1... </card>
<card id="section2"> ...Stuff for Section 2... </card>
<card id="section3"> ...Stuff for Section 3... </card>
</deck>
</tabstrip>
Any link (within the deck?) that references a card's |id| will bring
that card to the front when clicked, allowing easy creation of wizards:
<form>
<deck>
<card id="section1">
...Stuff for Section 1...
<a href="#section2">Next</a>
</card>
<card id="section2">
...Stuff for Section 2...
<a href="#section1">Previous</a>
<a href="#section3">Next</a>
</card>
<card id="section3">
...Stuff for Section 3...
<a href="#section2">Previous</a>
<button type="submit">Finish</button>
</card>
</deck>
</form>
Received on Tuesday, 17 August 2004 06:57:57 UTC