- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 13:19:42 +0000 (UTC)
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004, Matthew Raymond wrote: > > > > <p>The <code>label</code> element's exact default behaviour must > > match the platform's label behaviour. For example. on platforms > > where clicking a checkbox label checks the checkbox, clicking a > > <code>label</code> element must cause a <code>click</code> event to > > be synthesised and fired at the checkbox.</p> > > There are a few problems with this: > > 1) When HTML 4.01 markup is transferred to a WF2 document, the <label> > behavior changes for the same markup with absolutely NO WAY TO RECOVER THE > PREVIOUS BEHAVIOR. The clause above does not contradict the HTML4 clause, so this isn't the case. > 2) The webmaster cannot reliably predict the behavior of <label> on a > platform without extensive knowledge of that platform. Therefore, if the > webmaster is targeting a specific set of operating systems and browsers, > he must have knowledge of how the native UI handles labels for each > control he uses, rather than simply depending on the HTML 4.01 specified > behavior. This makes no sense to me. If he is targetting a specific set of operating systems, then the WF2-mandated behaviour is better, since it means the author doesn't have to worry about sniffing for the platform and doing the right thing on each platform. > 3) You're providing no method of detecting whether input is passed to > the associated control. Therefore, is there not a risk of multiple > events being fired at the control when Javascript is introduced to make > up for the lack of event passing on some platforms? I don't think mulitple events would be a problem here. > 4) There's absolutely no way to know how <label> should behave when > associated with an <object> element. I think we should say that <object> cannot be a form control any more. Does anyone know of a case where it was made into a form control? -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 26 August 2004 06:19:42 UTC