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

[whatwg] Suggestion: Implementation of Tabbed Forms

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Thu, 08 Jul 2004 15:18:43 +0200
Message-ID: <40ED49B3.8000802@inkedblade.net>
Lachlan Hunt wrote:

> Matthew Raymond wrote:
>> Lachlan Hunt wrote:
>>>   Fair enough.  Perhaps a name that better represents what Ian 
>>> Hickson calls them: mutually exclusive sections, which, BTW, is quite 
>>> a good descriptive name.
>   Maybe something like <exclusive> and <mxsection> (Mutually eXclusive 
> section).
>   That's not an issue for me, since these elements are only there to 
> structure the content into exclusive sections, it shouldn't affect the 
> usability of the document in any way, because, as far as I'm concerned, 
> a well written document should be able to be understood, perhaps not as 
> easily, regardless of the style applied.

I don't see why you're calling these sections "mutually exclusive".
The /presentation/ of each section excludes the presentation of other
sections, but I've yet to see an example of how the sections are
themselves mutually exclusive. As has been described before, degrading
a set of preference panels into a long page of fieldsets makes just
as much logical sense as the tabs, it's just less pleasant to look at.
The one difference I see is that the tabs are "unordered" (i.e. they
can degrade to a set of fieldsets arranged in any order without changing
the meaning, like the items in an unordered list) whilst an actual page
of fieldsets implies ordering (ordered list).


Received on Thursday, 8 July 2004 06:18:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:58:35 UTC