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

[whatwg] New suggestion for mutually exclusive sections in WF2

From: dolphinling <dolphinling@myrealbox.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 00:18:27 -0400
Message-ID: <41734413.9060106@myrealbox.com>
I think you misunderstand me. I'm suggesting sections of forms that are
mutually exclusive semantically.

An example of this I see somewhat often is the comment page on a
livejournal. It has a choice to comment anonymously, as the currently
logged in user, or another registered user. If you chose another
registered user, it asks for the username and password. (See the
attached (slightly edited for clarity) screenshots.)

Matthew Raymond wrote:
>    Okay, let's look at this closely. Let's create three examples, the 
> first using the WA1 draft markup, one using my suggested modifications 
> to the draft, one using your markup, and an XUL example. First, your a 
> simplified version of your example:
> 
> | <form id='dessertform'>
> |  <input type='radio' name='dessert' value='icecream' id='i'>
> |  <label for='i'>Vanilla Ice Cream</label>
> |
> |  <fieldset qwe='i'>
> |   ...Contents...
> |  </fieldset>
> |
> |  <input type='radio' name='dessert' value='cake' id='c'>
> |  <label for='c'>Chocolate Cake</label>
> |
> |  <fieldset qwe='c'>
> |   ...Contents...
> |  </fieldset>
> | </form>
> 
>    Next, the WA1 draft version:
> 
> | <tabbox>
> |  <fieldset>
> |   <legend>Vanilla Ice Cream</legend>
> |   ...Contents...
> |  </fieldset>
> |  <fieldset>
> |   <legend>Chocolate Cake</legend>
> |   ...Contents...
> |  </fieldset>
> | </tabbox>
> 
>    Much simpler, and much easier to follow. Now my version:
> 
> | <tabbox>
> |  <tablabel for="i">Vanilla Ice Cream</tablabel>
> |  <tablabel for="c">Chocolate Cake</tablabel>
> |
> |  <fieldset id="i">
> |   ...Contents...
> |  </fieldset>
> |  <fieldset id="c">
> |   ...Contents...
> |  </fieldset>
> | </tabbox>
> 
>    My version is slightly more complicated, but it's more flexible. 
> (Actually, the previous example would still work with my suggested 
> revisions.)
> 
>    Now, look at XUL:
> 
> | <tabbox>
> |  <tabs>
> |   <tab label="Vanilla Ice Cream"/>
> |   <tab label="Chocolate Cake"/>
> |  </tabs>
> |
> |  <tabpanels>
> |   <tabpanel id="i">
> |    ...Contents...
> |   </tabpanel>
> |   <tabpanel id="c">
> |    ...Contents...
> |   </tabpanel>
> |  </tabpanels>
> | </tabbox>
> 
>    It's structurally similar to my example, but more complicated and 
> without the direct semantic association between the tab and the tab panel.
> 
>    I think I understand what you're trying to do with your markup. The 
> radio buttons or check boxes allow the user of a legacy browser to 
> select the section they want to work with. The problem with this is that 
> there's no point. Tabs aren't for selecting what section is processed. 
> They're merely a way of limiting what section is displayed.
> 
>    What's more, your system would require <form> elements to be used as 
> containers for tabs. This would make it impossible to have a <form> on 
> each tab.
> 
>    Bottom line: Your system is more complicated, more difficult to read, 
> and provides no real benefit over the WA1 draft spec, both for 
> functionality and legacy content.
> 
> 

(sorry for sending this twice to you yet again... one of these days, I 
/will/ remember to cc the list on my first try)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ljlogin1.png
Type: image/png
Size: 2438 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20041018/94cbd62c/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ljlogin2.png
Type: image/png
Size: 2520 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20041018/94cbd62c/attachment-0001.png>
Received on Sunday, 17 October 2004 21:18:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:58:37 UTC