On Thu, 5 Dec 2013, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
>
> Let me understand the problem of styling/replacing builtin form controls.
>
> As I understand it, people want to do:
>
> <select name=cities is=map>
> <option>Oakland</option>
> <option>San Francisco</option>
> <option>San Jose</option>
> ...
> </select>
> or
> <input is=switch type=checkbox ...>
>
> to have a nice fallback when "is" / shadow DOM is not supported.
>
> Why can't we just do:
> <map>
> <select name=cities>
> <option>Oakland</option>
> <option>San Francisco</option>
> <option>San Jose</option>
> ...
> </select>
> </map>
> and
> <switch><input type=checkbox ...></switch>
>
> instead?
I suppose you _could_ do that, but it would mean that author-defined
widgets would be second class citizens.
Personally what I'd like is:
<select name=cities>
<option>Oakland</option>
<option>San Francisco</option>
<option>San Jose</option>
...
</select>
...with:
select[name=cities] { binding: url(map); }
...in the CSS, since this is just presentation.
> What is so special about form controls or custom elements that warrant a
> completely different mechanism?
Different than what? I'd love the markup to not be different whether or
not we're using custom widget presentations.
--
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
