- From: levik <levikcom@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 22:30:22 -0400
To your first point, I would say that it is completely unnecessary. The method for doing this in javascript is very straightforward, and a flexible solution implemented in HTML will likely not be less verbose (especially if you want to accomodate weird rules like a triangle of option lists) As far as the second point, I have suggested earlier today that tree type selects be implemented by nesting OPTGROUP elements within each other. By augmenting the current spec a little, we could say that in SELECTS with MULTIPLE property enabled, OPTGROUPS will be rendered as collapsible tree branches - this has the advantage of still showing all the options normally in legacy browsers - gracefully degrading the interface. On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 22:09:14 -0400, Robert J. Accettura <robert at accettura.com> wrote: > > Sorry for the lag on this one, but life has kept me busy.... > > There are two things I would like in forms. I think others would agree, > since both concepts have been used quite a bit, and are increasing, > though are commonly done in JS, or Flash due to HTML limitations. These > aren't implementations, or specs by any means, but written in hopes > someone sees the void that exists, and can build on this: > > The first is the ability to move options between lists... > > <select multiple name="lista" attach="listb"> > <option value="1">A</option> > <option value="2">B</option> > <option value="3">C</option> > <option value="4">D</option> > <option value="5">E</option> > </select> > > <input type="selectMove" value="A to B" /> > <input type="selectMove" value="B to A" /> > > <select multiple name="listb" attach="lista"> > </select> > > This is done all the time with javascript, why not just standardize it. > Would be great IMHO. It's very useful. The alternative to some JS > right now is to reload the page for each item selected. Very ugly with > all that reloading. > > The option is important for grouping data. Ideally you can move between > more than just 2 lists. Perhaps a 3 way triangle. > > ---------------------- > > The second thing on my X-Mas wish list is a simple tree. The ability to > apply styles would be nice too (though not portrayed here). Perhaps it > could be rendered by platform (so for Mac OS X, it takes that long > length wise feature I love so much). > > <select name=foo class="bar"> > <option value="folder1" type=root view=maximized>My Stuff</option> > <option value="folder1a" type=directory view=maximized>My Documents</option> > <option value="folder1a1" type=directory view=maximized>Work</option> > <option value="folder1a1a" type=object view=maximized>Revenue Plan</option> > <option value="folder1a1b" type=object view=maximized>Our Enron > Scandle</option> > <option value="folder1a2" type=directory view=maximized>Fun</option> > <option value="folder1a2a" type=object view=maximized>My Pong > Scores</option> > <option value="folder1a3" type=directory view=maximized>Revenge</option> > <option value="folder1a3a" type=object view=maximized>How to be a > Jerk</option> > <option value="folder1b4" type=directory view=maximized>My Music</option> > <option value="folder1b4a" type=object view=maximized>BeGee's Sing like > women</option> > <option value="folder1c" type=directory view=maximized>My Pr0n</option> > <option value="folder1c1" type=directory view=minimized > class="monkeypr0n">Monkies</option> > <option value="folder1c2" type=directory view=minimized>People</option> > </select> > > HTML lacks a nice way to show structure. That's a selling point of XUL > as a web app. There's no good way to show large sums of data other than > a table (which obviously isn't as good as a tree in some cases). > > Yea, these are really ideas, not really any implementation in this > email. I'll leave that for now to the pro's. My goal here is just to > get people thinking about these two missing holes in what is otherwise a > pretty cool spec. These are two concepts I feel are pretty > under-represented in HTML, but pretty well represented on the OS level. > > Sorry this is all so rough. > > > -- > Robert J. Accettura > robert at accettura.com > > > > > smime.p7s - 3K >
Received on Monday, 28 June 2004 19:30:22 UTC