- From: dolphinling <dolphinling@myrealbox.com>
- Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2005 11:54:44 -0500
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