- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 12:45:31 +0000 (UTC)
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