W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > March 2006

[whatwg] 2.20.2 The command element - icon attribute

From: ROBO Design <robodesign@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 19:11:06 +0200
Message-ID: <op.s5ukosbdmapogm@localhost.localdomain>
Le Fri, 03 Mar 2006 16:30:29 +0200, Matthew Paul Thomas  
<mpt at myrealbox.com> a ?crit:

> On Mar 3, 2006, at 7:11 AM, ROBO Design wrote:
>> ...
>> <mpt at myrealbox.com> a ?crit:
<...>
>> I wasn't subscribing to those opinions. I was just saying some people  
>> complain.
>
> Then why mention them at all? That seems like dog-whistling.
>

There are many different ways to make a point........

> ...
> Do you have any specific reason for wanting <command icon= to be part of  
> CSS? I'm not thoroughly opposed to the idea, it just seems very  
> inconvenient. Most icons will be used for only one menu item, so the  
> "you don't have to repeat yourself" argument for using CSS doesn't  
> apply. In that respect it's quite similar to <object src=.
>

Good point about inconvenience to use CSS when you can simply have an icon  
attribute.

I ask myself ... why add a new attribute just because it's nice to have it?

Hey, it would be nice to have <p align="left|center|right|justify"> if we  
are at it (it's much more convenient than using CSS just to change the  
text alignment).

>> I wouldn't personally like seeing a new menu for each web app, but  
>> that's the way it goes.
>
> Slippery slope fallacy. Currently, Web authors who want menus in HTML  
> either (a) misuse <select> with script, or (b) implement their own with  
> positioned elements and script. Introducing a third option, (c) use  
> <command> and related elements, won't increase the proportion of Web  
> developers using (b)! It certainly won't result in "each Web app" using  
> (b).
>
>> Leave open doors for ugly hacks or not?
>
> False dilemma fallacy. There is no "or not": HTML 5 doesn't, and can't,  
> prevent Web authors from continuing to use the ugly hacks they're  
> already using (except to cry "non-conformant!" and let slip the dogs of  
> validation). What it can, and does, do is offer better alternatives to  
> those hacks.
>

Good point regarding offering better alternatives to various hacks.

All of this talk didn't provide any (good) reasons at all for keeping the  
icon attribute. It's not just about the icon attribute itself ... it's  
about any presentational attribute. Why add it? If this gets added to the  
final spec other guys can simply ask for ... background color, for  
text-align, for whatever. To me ... having the icon attribute is like have  
align attribute to a <p>aragraph. They both make sense in the context  
(icon for menus and text align for paragraphs), but they are for  
presentational purpose.

Is that hard to understand?


-- 
http://www.robodesign.ro
ROBO Design - We bring you the future
Received on Friday, 3 March 2006 09:11:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:58:45 UTC