Re: Collapsing elements

On Mar 1, 2008, at 9:58 AM, David Woolley wrote:

> Brad Kemper wrote:
>> checkbox-like behavior) to any element. I do believe that checkbox- 
>> like behavior is what is needed in order to change between states  
>> for a collapsable list, just as radio-button-like behavior is what  
>> is needed in order to change between states of a tabs panel.
> It seems to me that that requires changes to HTML.

Yes, if you want it to be applicable to any element. Or you could do  
it the way my demo does it, which uses existing CSS3, and currently  
works (mostly) in about 3 rendering engines that I am aware of  
(mentioned in last post). 2, if you don't count WebKit yet, but it is  

Trying to create or change the state in CSS-only and then read the  
state via CSS selectors would be problematic (leading to circular  
logic). And you still need something that translates a click on the  
element to a changed state. Currently CSS is used to set the styling  
(including display and visibility) of HTML elements in various states  
(hover, visited, checked, selected, etc., plus their normal default  
state), but not to set those states or change between them. If you  
are proposing that CSS should go beyond styling and get into state  
maintenance, then that is a slippery slope.

Maintaining state via CSS is unnecessarily different from the way  
binary state information is currently set and changed in HTML. The  
"on/off", "checked/unchecked", "1/0" state information is an abstract  
quality currently in checkboxes and radio buttons, where meaning is  
usually provided by where it is posted to, and styling based on that  
abstract state is available via CSS (including display of adjacent  
elements, as I have shown). Even Andrew's "behaviors" are just using  
CSS to assign what are essentially HTML element behaviors, not  
behaviors to describe something that only exists within CSS.

Is the HTMLWG difficult to work with? Is coordinating efforts in this  
regard impossible?

> -- 
> David Woolley
> Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
> RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
> that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.

Received on Saturday, 1 March 2008 19:38:31 UTC