- From: Jukka K. Korpela <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
- Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 08:14:59 +0300
Aryeh Gregor wrote: > On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 11:58 AM, Jukka K. Korpela > <jkorpela at cs.tut.fi> wrote: >> Not necessarily. The for="..." attribute could be made optional, so >> that the default association is to associate the <summary> attribute >> with the next sibling element. >> >> (I wonder why the association between <label> elements and input >> fields has not been defined this way. It's too late now, but things >> aren't too late for <details>.) > > If <label> has no "for" attribute, it labels its first labelable > descendant. Yes, as in HTML 4, but that's a different issue, related to descendants, not siblings. It requires that the input field be written inside a <label> element, which is illogical: the field is not part of its label. Just as <label> could have been defined to be paired with (by default) its next sibling or, perhaps better, with the next input field, <summary> could be defined to be paired with its next sibling or, perhaps better, with the next <details> element, by default. The element name "summary" is somewhat odd, and would appear even more odd if liberated from appearing inside <details>. This element is really meant to be a control for rendering vs. not rendering the contents of the <details> element, and its contents is just a label for the control. The example at http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/interactive-elements.html#the-details-element is accompanied with the note "In these examples, the summary really just summarises what the controls can change, and not the actual values, which is less than ideal." In reality, the example seems to correspond to _normal_ expected use of <details>, so the name "summary" is misleading. Perhaps <control> would be better, but as it's really a special kind of control only, how about <open>? -- Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Received on Monday, 11 April 2011 22:14:59 UTC