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

[whatwg] Suggestion: Implementation of Tabbed Forms

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 12:45:31 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0408261242460.21191@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004, Matthew Raymond wrote:
> > 
> > Tabs are not mutually exclusive, they are just an unordered
> > group of related sections that are usually shown such that only one is
> > visible at any one time.
> 
> Why do we need semantic mutual exclusion at all? It seems to be some kind
> of semantic justification of the presentational value of having a group of
> sections where only one can display at a time. On a practical level, just how
> useful is non-presentational mutual exclusion in markup?

I've run into several cases where I've needed this. For example, writing a 
game application with four screens, all implemented in the same HTML file: 
the login screen, the game "lobby" screen, the actual game screen, and the 
results screen. Only one of those is to be displayed at any one time.


> > Anyway, the spec currently has a separate section for tabs, which says that
> > the tabbed version of the above would be:
> > 
> >     <tabbox>
> >       <section>
> >         <h1>Section 1</h1>
> >       </section>
> >       <section>
> >         <h1>Section 2</h1>
> >       </section>
> >     </tabbox>
> 
> Quick note: I have to say, I don't like the header tags being treated as
> tag labels. There are cases where we've done something similar, but only when
> absolutely necessary. I'm a little concerned that we're getting too clever
> with our markup rather than having a straight-forward standard.

What's not straight-forward about this?


> > The name <tabbox> will probably be changed to <group>. See the spec 
> > for better examples. (Graceful degradation as your example had is 
> > possible too, since non-section elements in the tabbox are ignored.)
> 
>    My <tabstrip> is actually more powerful, because it allows tabs to be used
> separately from the sections concept. For instance, the <tabstrip> could be
> used with frames:
> 
> <tabstrip>
>   <tabs>
>     <tab for="section1.htm" target="main">Section 1</tab>
>     <tab for="section2.htm" target="main">Section 2</tab>
>     <tab for="section3.htm" target="main">Section 3</tab>
>   </tabs>
> </tabstrip>

This is also supported in the <tabbox> case, using <a> elements instead of 
<section> elements.


> It could also be used with simple Javascript events, so vendors could 
> keep tabstrip even if they decide to pass on <section>.

Not sure what you mean here.


> > > >   <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.)
> > 
> > Yeah. They're not really pages. You could have several of these at once. 
> 
> What is the motivation for passing on the <deck> of <cards> metaphor? To
> presentational in nature?

When I think of <deck>s and <card>s, I don't think of sections or tabs.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 26 August 2004 05:45:31 UTC

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