Re: [WSG] Re: Use of Fieldsets other than in form?
On 5 Jun 2007, at 19:22, Paul Novitski wrote: The FIELDSET definition could easily have included: (INPUT|SELECT|TEXTAREA|BUTTON)+ or: (%formctrl)+ But it doesn't. And if it did then the fieldset couldn't contain elements that add extra semantic information about the form controls, their labels, and their relationships to each other. The DTD almost always errs towards the liberal, it is expected that documents be written according to the prose of the specification and not just the machine readable components of it. -- David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk/ http://blog.dorward.me.uk/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Re: Use of Fieldsets other than in form?
At 6/6/2007 01:13 AM, David Dorward wrote: On 5 Jun 2007, at 19:22, Paul Novitski wrote: The FIELDSET definition could easily have included: (INPUT|SELECT|TEXTAREA|BUTTON)+ or: (%formctrl)+ But it doesn't. And if it did then the fieldset couldn't contain elements that add extra semantic information about the form controls, their labels, and their relationships to each other. Well, not really. The syntax allows us to eat our cake and have it, too: ((#PCDATA,LEGEND,(%flow;)*,(%formctrl)+) If I'm wielding the syntax right, that gives you all the flexibility of the current element definition while still requiring at least one form control per fieldset. Or maybe it needs room for more %flow elements, like: ((#PCDATA,LEGEND,(%flow;)*,(%formctrl,(%flow;)*)+) one chunk of character data, followed by: one legend, followed by: zero or more flow elements, followed by: one or more: form control, followed by: zero or more flow elements Mind you, FIELDSET's current content model definition doesn't look quite right to me: (#PCDATA,LEGEND,(%flow;)*) I read this to say, required character data followed by a required LEGEND element followed by zero or more flow elements. This would appear to obviate the LEGEND coming first in the markup inside the FIELDSET: fieldsetlegendThis is a legend/legend... Where's the PCDATA between fieldset and legend? Unless there's something about the syntax I'm not understanding, the content mode should make the PCDATA optional: ((#PCDATA)*,LEGEND,(%flow;)*) The DTD almost always errs towards the liberal, it is expected that documents be written according to the prose of the specification and not just the machine readable components of it. That's a very interesting assertion and gets right to the heart of many of the debates on this list. It sounds counter-intuitive to me: I would expect the prose to be more liberal than the machine-readable DTD. Can you recall the source of that expectation? If we could nail that one down it would certainly help clear up much of the apparent tension between the very specific DTD and the comparatively loose descriptive passages of the spec. I read the HTML spec as an annotated DTD, using prose to discuss and exemplify the element and attribute definitions for us mushy wetware types. Every section of the spec begins by quoting the DTD and then discussing those definitions. On a quick re-reading of the spec's introductory sections I don't see where we're advised to place more authority in the prose than in the DTD. Just to maintain perspective let me add that I'm pursuing this aspect of the discussion NOT as a campaign for fieldsets without form controls (I feel that part of the debate has been laid to rest) but rather because I want to better understand the DTD and its relationship to the spec, especially in a case like this where they appear to contradict. Regards, Paul __ Paul Novitski Juniper Webcraft Ltd. http://juniperwebcraft.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Re: Use of Fieldsets other than in form?
Paul Novitski schreef: documents be written according to the prose of the specification and not just the machine readable components of it. The DTD almost always errs towards the liberal, it is expected that That's a very interesting assertion and gets right to the heart of many of the debates on this list. It sounds counter-intuitive to me: I would expect the prose to be more liberal than the machine-readable DTD. Can you recall the source of that expectation? If we could nail that one down it would certainly help clear up much of the apparent tension between the very specific DTD and the comparatively loose descriptive passages of the spec. I read the HTML spec as an annotated DTD, using prose to discuss and exemplify the element and attribute definitions for us mushy wetware types. Every section of the spec begins by quoting the DTD and then discussing those definitions. On a quick re-reading of the spec's introductory sections I don't see where we're advised to place more authority in the prose than in the DTD. Just to maintain perspective let me add that I'm pursuing this aspect of the discussion NOT as a campaign for fieldsets without form controls (I feel that part of the debate has been laid to rest) but rather because I want to better understand the DTD and its relationship to the spec, especially in a case like this where they appear to contradict. I was just reading something about this on the HTML5 mailing list (so it might not be applicable to the current HTML/XHTML versions). In the HTML5 working draft spec it says: ... To put it another way, there are three types of conformance criteria: Criteria that can be expressed in a DTD. Criteria that cannot be expressed by a DTD, but can still be checked by a machine. Criteria that can only be checked by a human. A conformance checker must check for the first two. A simple DTD-based validator only checks for the first class of errors and is therefore not a conforming conformance checker according to this specification. So in HTML5 the spec is definitly not just proze version of its DTD, but a lot more than that. Not all of which can be expressed in a DTD. Although I'm not sure I guess something similar will be the case with the current HTML and XHTML specs. cheers, Sander *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Re: Use of Fieldsets other than in form?
Hi all respondees Ben Said ...it depends if you're talking about page layout or actual content - ie. is your business name, logo etc being used in a header; or are you creating a page which lists a bunch of businesses? For the former I'd simply use a DIV, for the latter a list (maybe a definition list). I am doing the latter.. (a page (or more) of business listings) so I was wanted an easy way to tie all the relevent information into one nice little block. As Lucien said the W3schools states that The fieldset element draws a box around its containing elements. with no mention of form controls and that's why I asked the question in the first place. It was a response to an is there a better way to do this sort of a moment! Also as Lucien said.. i didnt just want to draw a box visually around a bit of content.. i wanted to be able to clearly group the related information together neatly. I considered a DL but found it too restricting and I really didn't want a whole load of div classes with headers p tages etc churned out repeatedly down the page. It seemed to me that if the W3 schools definition of a fieldset was correct and valid then it was ideal for my requirements. The fact the validator passed it also seemed to me to say that it could be used in this way. If fieldset can't be used this way why does it pass validation? So... what to do? I dunno frankly... the jury is still out. I will say this though ...i think its a shame that when someone takes the time to respond to a question and states their point of view only to get shot down in flames and virtually abused. This list is here to enable us to discuss the implementation of webstandards amongst like minded people and I'm sure no one is really hell-bent on abusing the standards. Cheers Jackie - Original Message - From: Ben Buchanan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 12:36 PM Subject: Re: [WSG] Re: Use of Fieldsets other than in form? Can fieldsets only to be used in forms or can they be used to group any sort of related information together (ie: business name, short description, logo and link). The spec's wording is a little vague but by my reading of it, fieldset and legend are only intended for form controls. Beyond the spec, I would imagine that the average user's expectation is that fieldset+legend = form inputs, so purely from a usability point of view I'd keep fieldsets for forms. For general content, the heading structure should group information together; and don't forget that although we use them constantly, DIVs do actually add structure (http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/global.html#edef-DIV). When I really want to break up a page into chunks I also use HRs, although many people contest that usage I think it's valid. Lists also group related items together; although I do think it's an oversight of the spec that you can't explicitly associate a label or caption with lists. Still, a subheading + list is usually a pretty clear association. In some ways it depends if you're talking about page layout or actual content - ie. is your business name, logo etc being used in a header; or are you creating a page which lists a bunch of businesses? For the former I'd simply use a DIV, for the latter a list (maybe a definition list). Just my opinion, no doubt there will be plenty of others :) cheers, Ben -- --- http://weblog.200ok.com.au/ --- The future has arrived; it's just not --- evenly distributed. - William Gibson *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** __ NOD32 2308 (20070604) Information __ This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. http://www.eset.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Re: Use of Fieldsets other than in form?
On 5 Jun 2007, at 3:34 PM, Jackie Reid wrote: The fact the validator passed it also seemed to me to say that it could be used in this way. If fieldset can't be used this way why does it pass validation? Forgot this point: valid doesn't mean correct, or sensible. It's really easy to write code that validates, but which is semantic rubbish. The Validator is a great tool for checking the correctness of markup, but it can't interpret context - it's just a dumb piece of software. Oh, and while we're talking semantics: fieldset = set of fields - doesn't it? Comes back to those tables again. You can - they'll validate just fine, if you do 'em right. But does that mean you should? How robust will your markup be, over time and across technologies? N ___ omnivision. websight. http://www.omnivision.com.au/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Re: Use of Fieldsets other than in form?
Lucien Stals For a comparison, the w3schools site defines fieldset as The fieldset element draws a box around its containing elements. And that's the complete sentence. Note no mention of form controls. I leave it to others to debate the authority of the w3schools site, and it's a debate worth having. No need to debate it...w3schools is a cr*ppy resource, full stop. The definition of theirs that you quoted above is a case in point...they define an element by its visual effect? I haven't checked the site, can't be bothered, but I wouldn't be surprised if for blockquote they say it indents text... But I am a pragmatic coder and if I wish to group thematically related elements (*not* necessarily form controls), then I'm free to use the fieldset if I wish to. Sure a DIV would work. But a DIV is void of semantic. It's the refuge of the unimaginative who want to wrap everything in excess tags with no semantic meaning just to hang CSS off. The DIV and SPAN elements, in conjunction with the id and class attributes, offer a generic mechanism for *adding structure* to documents. Divining hidden meaning from the HTML specifications, conveniently ignoring certain parts of the descriptions, and then intimating I'm sure this is what the W3C *meant* to say is the refuge of...? P Patrick H. Lauke Web Editor External Relations Division University of Salford Room 113, Faraday House Salford, Greater Manchester M5 4WT UK T +44 (0) 161 295 4779 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.salford.ac.uk A GREATER MANCHESTER UNIVERSITY *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Re: Use of Fieldsets other than in form?
On 5 Jun 2007, at 6:13 PM, Patrick Lauke wrote: No need to debate it...w3schools is a cr*ppy resource, full stop. That's an opinion, which of course you're entitled to (happens that I agree with you) - but I couldn't resist taking a look. And right there on their Home page: W3Schools provides material for training only. We do not warrant the correctness of its contents. The risk from using it lies entirely with the user. Well, yes. N ___ omnivision. websight. http://www.omnivision.com.au/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Re: Use of Fieldsets other than in form?
but that doesn't mean that the resulting document actually makes any sense whatsoever... Thank you Patrick. Especially to those using assistive devices. Kind regards, Frank M. Palinkas Microsoft M.V.P. - Windows Help W3C HTML Working Group (H.T.M.L.W.G.) - Invited Expert M.C.P., M.C.T., M.C.S.E., M.C.D.B.A., A+ Senior Technical Communicator Web Standards Accessibility Designer website: http://frank.helpware.net email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Member: Society for Technical Communications (S.T.C.) Guild of Accessible Web Designers (G.A.W.D.S.) Web Standards Group (W.S.G.) Supergroup Trading Ltd. Sandhurst, Gauteng, South Africa website: http://www.supergroup.co.za Work: +27 011 523 4931 Home: +27 011 455 5287 Fax: +27 011 455 3112 Mobile: +27 074 109 1908 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Lauke Sent: Tuesday, 05 June, 2007 10:06 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: RE: [WSG] Re: Use of Fieldsets other than in form? Nick Gleitzman Forgot this point: valid doesn't mean correct, or sensible. It's really easy to write code that validates, but which is semantic rubbish. The Validator is a great tool for checking the correctness of markup, but it can't interpret context - it's just a dumb piece of software. Validation is akin to a word processor's spellchecker: it can tell you if you spelt everything correctly, but that doesn't mean that the resulting document actually makes any sense whatsoever... P Patrick H. Lauke Web Editor External Relations Division University of Salford Room 113, Faraday House Salford, Greater Manchester M5 4WT UK T +44 (0) 161 295 4779 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.salford.ac.uk A GREATER MANCHESTER UNIVERSITY *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Re: Use of Fieldsets other than in form?
On 5 Jun 2007, at 04:19:38, Lucien Stals wrote: I in fact did quote the entire sentence. Yes, but you then dismissed the words controls and labels as being irrelevant. For a comparison, the w3schools site defines fieldset as The fieldset element draws a box around its containing elements. And that's the complete sentence. Note no mention of form controls. I leave it to others to debate the authority of the w3schools site, and it's a debate worth having. It has no authority whatsoever, and is generally an abysmal resource. I realise that many of the people here take pleasure in the pedantic application of standards, They probably pedantically drive on the correct side of the road and pedantically stop at red lights, too. But I am a pragmatic coder and if I wish to group thematically related elements (*not* necessarily form controls), then I'm free to use the fieldset if I wish to. But there's then little point in communicating this fact to a list about Web Stanbdards, as you are clearly advocating something which is in breach of said standards. Sure a DIV would work. But a DIV is void of semantic. It's the refuge of the unimaginative who want to wrap everything in excess tags with no semantic meaning just to hang CSS off. That's not what the spec says; it describes div as a generic mechanism for adding structure to a document. It then gives an example of using div (and span) to provide structure to thematically- related information whose elements' semantics are not explicitly identifiable by other HTML elements: http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/global.html#edef-DIV To me, a fieldset is obviously the correct semantic here. What is obvious about using it in a way that directly contradicts the defined purpose of it? But the original question wasn't about drawing a box. It was about how to group any sort of related information together. And I say a fieldset would work. It's not the only solution, but it's a valid one. And not just valid by the DTD. It's only valid by the DTD in the sense that the DTD is incapable of expressing all the constraints imposed upon the usage of HTML elements; those constraints are made explicit in the spec by such means as the sentence you originally quoted. I think it's semantically valid as well. It's semantically meaningless as a fieldset is meant to contain a thematically related set of fields, not a thematically related set of arbitrary textual information. Regards, Nick. -- Nick Fitzsimons http://www.nickfitz.co.uk/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Re: Use of Fieldsets other than in form?
Nick Fitzsimons wrote: But there's then little point in communicating this fact to a list about Web Stanbdards, as you are clearly advocating something which is in breach of said standards. Steady on, Nick. If he wasn't here you wouldn't be able to tell him this - it's exactly the right place for Lucien to be. ...and then later: It's semantically meaningless as a fieldset is meant to contain a thematically related set of fields, not a thematically related set of arbitrary textual information. Exactly. Lucien: I understand you like the semantic idea of 'set' - but 'fields' are a pretty specific notion. If you like having tags describing 'a thing containing other things', that's a given with any block-level element in SGML - so don't worry about it, it's prety obvious to a deceased squirrel foetus that a div containing objects is containing objects, and that those objects could be described as 'the set of objects sharing that parent'. Back to fields however: 18. Computers. a. one or more related characters treated as a unit and constituting part of a record, for purposes of input, processing, output, or storage by a computer: If the hours-worked field is blank or zero, the program does not write a check for that employee. b. (in a punch card) any number of columns regularly used for recording the same information. I lifted this off dictionary.com. It fails to mention that this is an attitude that reigns outside of computers and has long been established in paper-based bureaucracy - you fill in the fields of a form (i.e. 'What should I put in this field?'). Taking it out of that context is operating to standards of your own - perhaps fun as a one-person inside joke, but otherwise just baffling and needlessly convoluted. Regards, Barney *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Re: Use of Fieldsets other than in form?
On 5 Jun 2007, at 14:57:44, Barney Carroll wrote: Nick Fitzsimons wrote: But there's then little point in communicating this fact to a list about Web Stanbdards, as you are clearly advocating something which is in breach of said standards. Steady on, Nick. If he wasn't here you wouldn't be able to tell him this - it's exactly the right place for Lucien to be. Yes, my apologies to Lucien and the list - that does come across as rather snarky, which wasn't my intention. (I misspelled Standards as well...) Blame it on a zealot becoming so wrapped up in pedantic argument that he fails to properly consider whether his words correctly convey his semantic intent :-) Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Fitzsimons http://www.nickfitz.co.uk/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Re: Use of Fieldsets other than in form?
Barney Carroll wrote: ...a deceased squirrel foetus Wow. What an image. N ___ omnivision. websight. http://www.omnivision.com.au/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Re: Use of Fieldsets other than in form?
Nick Gleitzman wrote: Barney Carroll wrote: ...a deceased squirrel foetus Wow. What an image. N ___ I wondered if you kept one on hand, in your office, for purposes of validation? -- Bob www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Re: Use of Fieldsets other than in form?
Kick the auto responder on that persons email or ban them, it's becoming annoying now! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Designer Sent: 05 June 2007 19:08 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Re: Use of Fieldsets other than in form? Nick Gleitzman wrote: Barney Carroll wrote: ...a deceased squirrel foetus Wow. What an image. N ___ I wondered if you kept one on hand, in your office, for purposes of validation? -- Bob www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Re: Use of Fieldsets other than in form?
Designer wrote: Nick Gleitzman wrote: Barney Carroll wrote: ...a deceased squirrel foetus Wow. What an image. N ___ I wondered if you kept one on hand, in your office, for purposes of validation? I use it mostly for accessibility tests. The fur gets a bit greasy and matted occasionally and the smell's regretable - but I've been working with developers for so long now, I barely notice. Regards, Barney *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Re: Use of Fieldsets other than in form?
C'mon guys, we all know what the proper use of a Fieldset is. Does anyone feel that this is going on forever? So can we use it to group textual information? Of course we can. We can drive with our feet if we wanted to, doesn't mean its a good idea. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Re: Use of Fieldsets other than in form?
Jackie, you said I really didn't want a whole load of div classes with headers p tags etc churned out repeatedly down the page. Why not? It is clearly the most appropriate way to mark up that content. And what would the use of fieldsets change? You would still have the same quantity of markup except that it is less semantically accurate. You are suggesting that you would leave out the header elements but who would benefit from their omission or replacement with legends? It seems that you are searching for some kind of minimal markup without thinking about why you're doing it. How is a screen reader user going to understand the content of a page that just contains fieldsets and perhaps some paragraphs but no headers or lists? How are they going to navigate effectively though it? It's not just them either. Opera users who use keyboard navigation can also skip from header to header. And what about programmatic access by other software applications? They will not understand your personal definition of the semantic structure so they will view the entire page as one lump rather than numerous groups of related content. These are the kind of considerations that should drive your coding decisions. Mark up your content in a manner that is unambiguous to other users, and don't adopt a bizarre interpretation of the standards that no one other than a handful of 'imaginative' coders will understand. Steve -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jackie Reid Sent: 05 June 2007 06:35 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Re: Use of Fieldsets other than in form? Hi all respondees Ben Said ...it depends if you're talking about page layout or actual content - ie. is your business name, logo etc being used in a header; or are you creating a page which lists a bunch of businesses? For the former I'd simply use a DIV, for the latter a list (maybe a definition list). I am doing the latter.. (a page (or more) of business listings) so I was wanted an easy way to tie all the relevent information into one nice little block. As Lucien said the W3schools states that The fieldset element draws a box around its containing elements. with no mention of form controls and that's why I asked the question in the first place. It was a response to an is there a better way to do this sort of a moment! Also as Lucien said.. i didnt just want to draw a box visually around a bit of content.. i wanted to be able to clearly group the related information together neatly. I considered a DL but found it too restricting and I really didn't want a whole load of div classes with headers p tages etc churned out repeatedly down the page. It seemed to me that if the W3 schools definition of a fieldset was correct and valid then it was ideal for my requirements. The fact the validator passed it also seemed to me to say that it could be used in this way. If fieldset can't be used this way why does it pass validation? So... what to do? I dunno frankly... the jury is still out. I will say this though ...i think its a shame that when someone takes the time to respond to a question and states their point of view only to get shot down in flames and virtually abused. This list is here to enable us to discuss the implementation of webstandards amongst like minded people and I'm sure no one is really hell-bent on abusing the standards. Cheers Jackie *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Re: Use of Fieldsets other than in form?
The FIELDSET element allows authors to group thematically related controls and labels. Grouping controls makes it easier for users to understand their purpose while simultaneously facilitating tabbing navigation for visual user agents and speech navigation for speech-oriented user agents. The proper use of this element makes documents more accessible. I think the first and last sentence make it clear that the intention is for fieldset to be used in forms. Although it does not explicitly say ...and nowhere else it's pretty clear where the writers *did* mean it to be used. For a comparison, the w3schools site defines fieldset as The fieldset element draws a box around its containing elements. And that's the complete sentence. Note no mention of form controls. A third party's description of the spec is not the spec; in discussions about the spec we have to go to the real source, not an interpretation of the original. I realise that many of the people here take pleasure in the pedantic application of standards, and I'll state for the record that I agree with the concept of the semantic web. It's interesting to see where standards advocates call each other pedantic. Meanwhile the rest of the industry would consider pretty much everyone on this list to be pedants of the first degree because they care about standards at all. So realistically, application of standards has to be pedantic otherwise it's not application of standards at all - it's picking and choosing. Still, it cannot be denied that we get awfully bogged down in the minutiae sometimes :) But I am a pragmatic coder and if I wish to group thematically related elements (*not* necessarily form controls), then I'm free to use the fieldset if I wish to. My opinion is that you are not free to do so. Fieldsets were clearly intended to be used in forms and the spec does not suggest using them anywhere else. You're using the absence of an explicit prohibition as permission. Sure a DIV would work. But a DIV is void of semantic. It's the refuge of the unimaginative who want to wrap everything in excess tags with no semantic meaning just to hang CSS off. To me, a fieldset is obviously the correct semantic here. Well it has already been pointed out that DIV does have semantic significance - it adds structure by containing parts of the page. It's just used so heavily that we tend to forget it has a real, live meaning :) The only major difference between DIV and FIELDSET the way you propose is that FIELDSET renders a box by default. A key point that doesn't seem to have come up is that in the real world screen readers make use of fieldsets in a way which assumes they're in a form. The legend can be vocalised together with labels to provide full context. Unfortunately I don't have a screen reader handy to test what it does with a fieldset that's not in a form; but I would be concerned that it could get really confusing for form elements to crop up in the middle of general content. I won't speculate any further, but if anyone has a screen reader handy, perhaps they could shed some light on this? cheers, Ben -- --- http://weblog.200ok.com.au/ --- The future has arrived; it's just not --- evenly distributed. - William Gibson *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Re: Use of Fieldsets other than in form?
I can't generalise about screen readers, but JAWS would read the legend as if it were any other paragraph i.e. it would not differentiate it from the other text in the way it does with headers. The user may or may not work out for themselves that it is the start of a new section of content. JAWS' behaviour in 'forms mode' is moot because it can only enter 'forms mode' when a form control has focus. If there are no form controls it can't enter 'forms mode'. It could enter 'forms mode' if there are form controls elsewhere on the page, but that won't matter because in 'forms mode' the focus can only move between links and form controls so the legends won't be read unless there actually is a form control in a fieldset. The bottom line is that there will be no adverse behaviour but all the benefits of using headers (e.g. navigation and indication of structure) will be lost. Steve -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ben Buchanan Sent: 06 June 2007 02:28 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Re: Use of Fieldsets other than in form? The FIELDSET element allows authors to group thematically related controls and labels. Grouping controls makes it easier for users to understand their purpose while simultaneously facilitating tabbing navigation for visual user agents and speech navigation for speech-oriented user agents. The proper use of this element makes documents more accessible. I think the first and last sentence make it clear that the intention is for fieldset to be used in forms. Although it does not explicitly say ...and nowhere else it's pretty clear where the writers *did* mean it to be used. For a comparison, the w3schools site defines fieldset as The fieldset element draws a box around its containing elements. And that's the complete sentence. Note no mention of form controls. A third party's description of the spec is not the spec; in discussions about the spec we have to go to the real source, not an interpretation of the original. I realise that many of the people here take pleasure in the pedantic application of standards, and I'll state for the record that I agree with the concept of the semantic web. It's interesting to see where standards advocates call each other pedantic. Meanwhile the rest of the industry would consider pretty much everyone on this list to be pedants of the first degree because they care about standards at all. So realistically, application of standards has to be pedantic otherwise it's not application of standards at all - it's picking and choosing. Still, it cannot be denied that we get awfully bogged down in the minutiae sometimes :) But I am a pragmatic coder and if I wish to group thematically related elements (*not* necessarily form controls), then I'm free to use the fieldset if I wish to. My opinion is that you are not free to do so. Fieldsets were clearly intended to be used in forms and the spec does not suggest using them anywhere else. You're using the absence of an explicit prohibition as permission. Sure a DIV would work. But a DIV is void of semantic. It's the refuge of the unimaginative who want to wrap everything in excess tags with no semantic meaning just to hang CSS off. To me, a fieldset is obviously the correct semantic here. Well it has already been pointed out that DIV does have semantic significance - it adds structure by containing parts of the page. It's just used so heavily that we tend to forget it has a real, live meaning :) The only major difference between DIV and FIELDSET the way you propose is that FIELDSET renders a box by default. A key point that doesn't seem to have come up is that in the real world screen readers make use of fieldsets in a way which assumes they're in a form. The legend can be vocalised together with labels to provide full context. Unfortunately I don't have a screen reader handy to test what it does with a fieldset that's not in a form; but I would be concerned that it could get really confusing for form elements to crop up in the middle of general content. I won't speculate any further, but if anyone has a screen reader handy, perhaps they could shed some light on this? cheers, Ben -- --- http://weblog.200ok.com.au/ --- The future has arrived; it's just not --- evenly distributed. - William Gibson *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Re: Use of Fieldsets other than in form?
Yes, I feel that way. It's like beating a dead...squirrel... Ely Solano wrote: C'mon guys, we all know what the proper use of a Fieldset is. Does anyone feel that this is going on forever? So can we use it to group textual information? Of course we can. We can drive with our feet if we wanted to, doesn't mean its a good idea. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Re: Use of Fieldsets other than in form?
On 6/5/07, Lucien Stals [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The HTML 4 specs say... The FIELDSET element allows authors to group thematically related controls and labels... While controls and labels refer to form controls, the fieldset itself can contain anything. My opinion would be that the important part of the use of fieldset is group thematically related content. I say go for it! If you only use a few words of a sentence you can make it say anything you want. You can't just lop off the end of a sentence to change its context. It says 'controls and labels' and it's meant that way. -- Australian Web Designer - http://www.blakehaswell.com/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Re: Use of Fieldsets other than in form?
Jackie Reid wrote: Can fieldsets only to be used in forms or can they be used to group any sort of related information together (ie: business name, short description, logo and link). What's wrong with using a DIV? I'd say leave fieldsets alone...they're specifically intended for forms, and even if a validator may not have a problem with a fieldset outside of a form, it's still using it for something other than its intended purpose. P -- Patrick H. Lauke __ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com __ Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ Take it to the streets ... join the WaSP Street Team http://streetteam.webstandards.org/ __ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Re: Use of Fieldsets other than in form?
Jackie Reid wrote: Can fieldsets only to be used in forms or can they be used to group any sort of related information From memory the W3C validator doesn't complain if you do use them outside a form, but they are designed specially to group thematically related controls and labels and you can always use headings and divs to group other related content. kind regards, Terrence Wood *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Re: Use of Fieldsets other than in form?
On Jun 5, 2007, at 10:19 AM, Jackie Reid wrote: Quick question for you lot. Can fieldsets only to be used in forms or can they be used to group any sort of related information together (ie: business name, short description, logo and link). In HTML 4.0, the description of fieldset can be found under the heading '17.10 Adding structure to forms: the FIELDSET and LEGEND elements' http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/interact/forms.html#edef-FIELDSET That makes quite clear that fieldset is intended for forms only And it is all part of chapter 17, 'Forms'. Philippe --- Philippe Wittenbergh http://emps.l-c-n.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Re: Use of Fieldsets other than in form?
I totally disagree with Lucien. It's nonsensical to suggest you can just ignore parts of a sentence that you find inconvenient. The definition is totally unambiguous - it states group thematically related controls and labels, not group thematically related content such as controls and labels. I say don't even think about it. Day after day in this forum some people seem to be hell-bent on abusing the standards like this? Why? It's not big, it's not clever and it's not necessary. Steve -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lucien Stals Sent: 05 June 2007 02:42 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] Re: Use of Fieldsets other than in form? The HTML 4 specs say... The FIELDSET element allows authors to group thematically related controls and labels... While controls and labels refer to form controls, the fieldset itself can contain anything. My opinion would be that the important part of the use of fieldset is group thematically related content. I say go for it! Lucien. -- Lucien Stals Multimedia/Web Developer Academic Development and Support Swinburne University of Technology PO Box 218 Hawthorn, 3122, Australia email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] telephone: +61 3 9214 4474 office: AD223 On 5/06/2007 at 11:19 am, Jackie Reid [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Quick question for you lot. Can fieldsets only to be used in forms or can they be used to group any sort of related information together (ie: business name, short description, logo and link). thanks Jackie *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** Swinburne University of Technology CRICOS Provider Code: 00111D NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and intended only for the use of the addressee. They may contain information that is privileged or protected by copyright. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, printing, copying or use is strictly prohibited. The University does not warrant that this e-mail and any attachments are secure and there is also a risk that it may be corrupted in transmission. It is your responsibility to check any attachments for viruses or defects before opening them. If you have received this transmission in error, please contact us on +61 3 9214 8000 and delete it immediately from your system. We do not accept liability in connection with computer virus, data corruption, delay, interruption, unauthorised access or unauthorised amendment. Please consider the environment before printing this email. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Re: Use of Fieldsets other than in form?
Can fieldsets only to be used in forms or can they be used to group any sort of related information together (ie: business name, short description, logo and link). The spec's wording is a little vague but by my reading of it, fieldset and legend are only intended for form controls. Beyond the spec, I would imagine that the average user's expectation is that fieldset+legend = form inputs, so purely from a usability point of view I'd keep fieldsets for forms. For general content, the heading structure should group information together; and don't forget that although we use them constantly, DIVs do actually add structure (http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/global.html#edef-DIV). When I really want to break up a page into chunks I also use HRs, although many people contest that usage I think it's valid. Lists also group related items together; although I do think it's an oversight of the spec that you can't explicitly associate a label or caption with lists. Still, a subheading + list is usually a pretty clear association. In some ways it depends if you're talking about page layout or actual content - ie. is your business name, logo etc being used in a header; or are you creating a page which lists a bunch of businesses? For the former I'd simply use a DIV, for the latter a list (maybe a definition list). Just my opinion, no doubt there will be plenty of others :) cheers, Ben -- --- http://weblog.200ok.com.au/ --- The future has arrived; it's just not --- evenly distributed. - William Gibson *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Re: Use of Fieldsets other than in form?
Whoops. Must have caught the cranky people on a bad day ;) I in fact did quote the entire sentence. The ellipsis at the end indicates there is more, but the more in this case was the rest of the paragraph, not the rest of the sentence. For clarity, I didn't ignore any part of the sentence, and it was in no way my intention to misdirect. I'm not even quite sure how that suggestion came about. If you're interested, the whole paragraph is... The FIELDSET element allows authors to group thematically related controls and labels. Grouping controls makes it easier for users to understand their purpose while simultaneously facilitating tabbing navigation for visual user agents and speech navigation for speech-oriented user agents. The proper use of this element makes documents more accessible. For a comparison, the w3schools site defines fieldset as The fieldset element draws a box around its containing elements. And that's the complete sentence. Note no mention of form controls. I leave it to others to debate the authority of the w3schools site, and it's a debate worth having. I realise that many of the people here take pleasure in the pedantic application of standards, and I'll state for the record that I agree with the concept of the semantic web. But I am a pragmatic coder and if I wish to group thematically related elements (*not* necessarily form controls), then I'm free to use the fieldset if I wish to. Sure a DIV would work. But a DIV is void of semantic. It's the refuge of the unimaginative who want to wrap everything in excess tags with no semantic meaning just to hang CSS off. To me, a fieldset is obviously the correct semantic here. Would I use it simply to have the browser draw a box around something? No. That's a presentational issue best dealt with by applying CSS to the relevant container. But the original question wasn't about drawing a box. It was about how to group any sort of related information together. And I say a fieldset would work. It's not the only solution, but it's a valid one. And not just valid by the DTD. I think it's semantically valid as well. BTW, I've said my piece, and I'll be quiet now. This mailing list has become the domain of too many snippy little flame wars of late. I don't know what's been getting up everyone's backsides, but I think I'll go lurk somewhere else for a while. Lucien. -- Lucien Stals Multimedia/Web Developer Academic Development and Support Swinburne University of Technology PO Box 218 Hawthorn, 3122, Australia email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] telephone: +61 3 9214 4474 office: AD223 On 5/06/2007 at 12:22 pm, Steve Green [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I totally disagree with Lucien. It's nonsensical to suggest you can just ignore parts of a sentence that you find inconvenient. The definition is totally unambiguous - it states group thematically related controls and labels, not group thematically related content such as controls and labels. I say don't even think about it. Day after day in this forum some people seem to be hell-bent on abusing the standards like this? Why? It's not big, it's not clever and it's not necessary. Steve -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lucien Stals Sent: 05 June 2007 02:42 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] Re: Use of Fieldsets other than in form? The HTML 4 specs say... The FIELDSET element allows authors to group thematically related controls and labels... While controls and labels refer to form controls, the fieldset itself can contain anything. My opinion would be that the important part of the use of fieldset is group thematically related content. I say go for it! Lucien. Swinburne University of Technology CRICOS Provider Code: 00111D NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and intended only for the use of the addressee. They may contain information that is privileged or protected by copyright. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, printing, copying or use is strictly prohibited. The University does not warrant that this e-mail and any attachments are secure and there is also a risk that it may be corrupted in transmission. It is your responsibility to check any attachments for viruses or defects before opening them. If you have received this transmission in error, please contact us on +61 3 9214 8000 and delete it immediately from your system. We do not accept liability in connection with computer virus, data corruption, delay, interruption, unauthorised access or unauthorised amendment. Please consider the environment before printing this email. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***BEGIN:VCARD
Re: [WSG] Re: Use of Fieldsets other than in form?
On 5 Jun 2007, at 11:41 AM, Lucien Stals wrote: ...the fieldset itself can contain anything... Huh? Where in the spec does it say that?! And why would you want to use something for which it's not intended? It would surely, at best, be semantically confusing. Some legacy code I just picked up contains multiple instances of this, and other equally dubious logic: span style=font-weight: bold;blah/span What's wrong with b/b? (OK, it should be strong/strong, but this is an old page without even a DOCTYPE - presumably from the good ol' days of HTML3.2) Similarly, why use a fieldset when a simple div will do? N ___ omnivision. websight. http://www.omnivision.com.au/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Re: Use of Fieldsets other than in form?
On Tuesday 05 June 2007 13:49:45 Nick Gleitzman wrote: Similarly, why use a fieldset when a simple div will do? I agree with you about what the spec says, but I don't think I agree the spec in this area is particularly good. The reason I have is that I may (and often do) want an interface that looks the same for both viewing and editing a resource, just with the static text replaced by input elements. Using fieldset for the form, as is semantically correct, and duplicating the look with a div on non-forms seems to be innefficient. Similarly label elements can be validly used anywhere (according to the validator service) but the spec explicitly says: The LABEL element may be used to attach information to controls. I then use label in my form, but have to use a span (or whatever), styled the same, to get the same visual when displaying the resource in it's non-editable state. This is a bit different be a label indicates behaviour for passing focus, as well as presentation. Luke. N ___ omnivision. websight. http://www.omnivision.com.au/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Re: Use of Fieldsets other than in form?
Lucien Stals wrote: But a DIV is void of semantic. Hello Lucien, I'm pretty sure a fieldset should only be used to group form controls. But others have written that. The reason I'm responding is because of that written above. A div does have semantic value in that it's a division or section. As far as I know the only element that offers nothing but air is the lowly span. Respectfully, Mike Cherim http://green-beast.com/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Re: Use of Fieldsets other than in form?
I almost cannot believe I'm joining this conversation but... Come on. It's pretty obvious what the fieldset tag is intended for, just as the legend tag. Picking apart the descriptions written by people to describe what they are in exact legal translation is rather pointless. Certainly loopholes are apparent in the language used in the specs, just as there are loopholes in the application of the tags in a document. CAN you use a fieldset legend to break up and organize content? Sure you can. Its looks kinda nice on screen, doesn't it SHOULD you do that? Well to follow recommended standards, no butmost users won't email you complaining about it, will they? Chances are, if you do choose that path, one day down the road you'll probably feel sheepish about the decision you made, even if only in the company of the group's zealots. Rules are meant to be understood and for the most part followed. Sometimes they're meant to be bent/broken a little, when it comes to document design, occasionally the ends can justify the means. Would I do it? No. The visual effect you are hoping to achieve is easy enough to do. It's just a box with a heading after all. My 2 cents, *Joseph R. B. Taylor* Sites by Joe, LLC /Custom Web Design Development/ Phone: (609) 335-3076 www.sitesbyjoe.com http://www.sitesbyjoe.com Nick Gleitzman wrote: On 5 Jun 2007, at 11:41 AM, Lucien Stals wrote: ...the fieldset itself can contain anything... Huh? Where in the spec does it say that?! And why would you want to use something for which it's not intended? It would surely, at best, be semantically confusing. Some legacy code I just picked up contains multiple instances of this, and other equally dubious logic: span style=font-weight: bold;blah/span What's wrong with b/b? (OK, it should be strong/strong, but this is an old page without even a DOCTYPE - presumably from the good ol' days of HTML3.2) Similarly, why use a fieldset when a simple div will do? N ___ omnivision. websight. http://www.omnivision.com.au/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
