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).

~fantasai

-- 
http://fantasai.inkedblade.net/contact
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