W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > January 2005

[whatwg] comments

From: dolphinling <dolphinling@myrealbox.com>
Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2005 11:54:44 -0500
Message-ID: <41D6D5D4.2060905@myrealbox.com>
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> dolphinling wrote:
> 
>> Also, in the repetition model, I _REALLY_ don't like the repeat 
>> attribute applying to arbitrary non-form-related elements. It seems 
>> incredibly hackish to me--why should trs, ps, lis, etc. get a new 
>> attribute just because forms have been updated? I'd much prefer that
>> the new attribute only apply to fieldsets, and those can be wrapped
>> around the stuff you want repeated (which is actually correct
>> semantically, too).
> 
> 
> That complicates it actually. For a lot of forms it is far more
> semantically correct to use multiple table rows. If you need to use
> FIELDSET with 'display:table-row' and some other CSS tricks which will
> not even work because you can not style FIELDSET properly this feature
> can better be dropped.
> 
> However, the feature is very useful and having an attribute that applies
> to multiple elements is not that bad and can actually be quite useful to
> achieve semantically correct results.

Actually, I meant something like

<fieldset repeat='template' repeat-start='blah'>
   <tr>...</tr>
   <tr>...</tr>
</fieldset>

...which I see now is invalid. I wish it weren't, though (even without 
templates I think fieldset should be able to go around table rows, or 
pretty much wherever else it wants), and I don't think there are many 
(if any) cases where it would be more semantically correct to not have 
fieldsets. The only ones I can think of are where there's only one input 
that's being repeated, but that's just semantically redundant, not wrong.

-- 
dolphinling
<http://livejournal.com/users/dolphinling>
<http://dolphinling.net> coming soon?
Received on Saturday, 1 January 2005 08:54:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 13 April 2015 23:08:20 UTC