- From: Steve Cheng <steve@elmert.ipoline.com>
- Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 15:44:11 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Douglas Rand <drand@sgi.com>
- cc: "Chris Wilson (PSD)" <cwilso@MICROSOFT.com>, "'Lee Daniel Crocker'" <lee@piclab.com>, walter@natural-innovations.com, www-html@w3.org, www-style@w3.org
On Thu, 17 Jul 1997, Douglas Rand wrote: > I don't get it. If the element is a pressable BUTTON, then why bend > over backwards to hide this? Even in an interface rendered for the > blind, the functionality of the element is going to exist (albeit in a > different form). I don't see anything wrong with BUTTON. If you want > something more general, have a container tag called CONTROL with a > TYPE= to get the semantics of the control. It could be like INPUT > except for being a container. This leads me to think why HTML 2.0 had things such as <INPUT TYPE=radio ...> which would be media-dependent. Of course it wouldn't be a smart move to redefine these attributes. CONTROL would be nice, because the element doesn't have to be presented as buttons even in GUI browsers. On the other hand, TYPE=checkbox sort of implies something to be checked, not necessarily a "box". Whether CONTROL is displayed as a button or something else might be left up to CSS. -- Steve Cheng elmert@ipoline.com http://www.ipoline.com/~elmert/
Received on Thursday, 17 July 1997 15:46:13 UTC