- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Thu, 08 Jul 2004 15:18:43 +0200
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