- From: Al Gilman <asgilman@access.digex.net>
- Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 08:30:56 -0400 (EDT)
- To: w3c-wai-hc@w3.org (HC team)
to follow up on what Dave Raggett said: > > A compromise is to get the HTML-WG to agree to something like: > > <form> > <p>Nested selections > <select name=pizza> > <optgroup name=size> > <option>medium [snip] Can someone compare/contrast for me the structural semantics implied by this OPTGROUP element as compared with UL? It seems that as we have recognized NAME to be a local variant of ID in A contexts, that we could recognize OPTION to be a local variant of LI in SELECT contexts. Over the long haul, it would seem that one would want to be able to wrap OPTION atoms in the same sort of structures as LI. All of them. Punctuated by LH or treed out by putting an xL inside a LI. If this is where we want to go in the end, let's not be introducing more peculiar terms into the language when the composition of the right generic constructs does the whole job. -- Al PS: The case where the OPTION atoms are not all unique but require the setting of companion parameters to discriminate all the selectable cases is a case of a hierarchy of SELECT structures. Each level of sub-SELECT entered identifies one parameter in the FORM and successive levels add parameter value nominations to the stack. Nothing is committed unless the user makes it to the leaves of the tree and designates a full vertical thread. This is your basic pullright rule, no?
Received on Wednesday, 8 October 1997 08:31:18 UTC