- From: Joost Smit <joost@talyn.student.utwente.nl>
- Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 02:20:34 +0200
Lachlan Hunt wrote: > No! Tabs are a presentational, not structural, and thus should not >be included in (X)HTML, or any other semantic markup language. > > I don't know for sure, tabs can be both structural and presentational i think. The discussion was whether or not to include in the form specification. At least, that's what i understand from the original post. Matthew Raymond suggested to implement a tabbed form using <fieldset> and <form>, while of course, you can do it in normal html too. I think what Matthew meant is that when you define it a standard (although you can do it in html) it's easier to use. Btw....in the webform specification : (under 1.5 Missing features) it says the following : "Elements or properties to create a "tabbed" or "wizard" interface. This need will be addressed in a separate specification." That's exactly how i feel about this, it doesn't belong in the webforms 2.0 specification, and I think it can be a useful extension of another specification. >>Something like a number of div's where there's always one visible, and >>the rest automatically hidden. >> >> > > There are already methods available that do exactly this, which >remain accessible with either or both CSS and JS unavailable. For example: >http://www.alistapart.com/articles/eatcake/ > * http://www.alistapart.com/d/eatcake/5.html > I know, but like i said above, People will use things more when they are easier to code. The example on a list apart isn't particular easy, so it's not something most people would use. I'm sure if it can be done easy, it will be used. That's a big deal of the whole WHATwg specifications i think. Most of the proposed form controls can be done with html/javascript/php and whatever method you choose. But it will be a lot easier with this new specification. Joost
Received on Monday, 28 June 2004 17:20:34 UTC