Re: [WSG] Fieldsets outside of forms. Was: Safari 3.1 and webkit-border-radius
In addition to using the dictionary, it's worth looking up how W3C uses the terms in relationship with the specs. http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt While MUST and MUST NOT would be more handy, reality is grey sometimes and does depend on the interpretation of the author. The biggest problem however is that most authors never read the specs. - Original Message - From: tee [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2008 2:20 AM Subject: Re: [WSG] Fieldsets outside of forms. Was: Safari 3.1 and webkit-border-radius Perhaps it will help the web standards if W3C to be more authoritative and dictatorial? MUST NOT, MUST, ABSOLUTELY NOT, ILLEGAL TO USE, NOT ALLOWED to replace these ambiguous MAY NOT, SHOULD, SHOULD NOT. This way, it makes no wrong suggestion to people who are not English tongue and who needs to depend on English dictionary to understand the spec - I am speaking of me :-) tee Keryx's point of view seems to be dominant, I fear. Even the teacher at my web design class seems to think that using EMs to style citations is valid. Yet she generally encourages web standards... :( Cordially, David -- *** 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] Fieldsets outside of forms. Was: Safari 3.1 and webkit-border-radius
tee skrev: Perhaps it will help the web standards if W3C to be more authoritative and dictatorial? MUST NOT, MUST, ABSOLUTELY NOT, ILLEGAL TO USE, NOT ALLOWED to replace these ambiguous MAY NOT, SHOULD, SHOULD NOT. If one reads the specs these words are not ambiguous. W3C uses these words according to RFC2119: http://rfc.net/rfc2119.html (While typing this message I see that Thomas Thomassen already has referred to this RFC.) What is ambiguous is that some older specs do not provide enough detail. HTML 4.01 only works since browsers emulate each other. As for fieldsets outside of forms we have a grey area. No spec says they are allowed or disallowed. There are simply no SHOULD or SHOULD NOT, MAY or MAY NOT phrases to guide us. That means - in spec language - that there is no prohibition. The only place where we have any indication is the DTD. Which says it is allowed. One could counter that argument by saying that this is a limitation of the DTD-language as such. The people who made the DTD cut a few corners to not make it too burdensome. However, putting FIELDSET outside of !ENTITY % %block P | %heading; | %list; | %preformatted; | DL | DIV | NOSCRIPT | BLOCKQUOTE | FORM | HR | TABLE | FIELDSET | ADDRESS would not be rocket science. It is doable. All it would take is to change this line: !ELEMENT FORM - - (%block;|SCRIPT)+ -(FORM) -- interactive form -- Into this: !ELEMENT FORM - - (%block;|FIELDSET|SCRIPT)+ -(FORM) -- interactive form -- Ergo: The only reasonable conclusion is that the spec writers did not intend to forbid the usage of fieldsets outside of forms. Which leaves with the question if it is wise, i.e. good practice. Perhaps also the letter of the law vs. the spirit of the law. However, the comparison that was made with using tables for layout does not make sense. I also note that no one is quoting any research showing any negative effects. Keryx's point of view seems to be dominant, I fear. Even the teacher at my web design class seems to think that using EMs to style citations is valid. Yet she generally encourages web standards... :( There is a difference. EM has clear implications for screen readers and othe UAs, and there are already elements available that has been made for quotations: q and blockquote. Once again the comparison is wrong. The two cases are not analogous. What I want is more like a div with a caption, for which there is no predefined markup. In HTML 5 I would perhaps use aside, but still have no way of specifying a caption. Unless HTML 5 explicitly allows the use of fieldsets outside of forms, or captions outside of tables (or invents some new markup), and specifically defines how the parsing algorithm should look like and how the information should be made available to the user by the UA. Lars Gunther *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Fieldsets outside of forms. Was: Safari 3.1 and webkit-border-radius
On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 13:15:22 +0100, Keryx Web wrote: David Dorward skrev: From the spec: The FIELDSET element allows authors to group thematically related controls and labels. --- [...] E. I wanted the effect... Effects are the realm of CSS and JS, not markup. Generally true, but for me not worth the trouble in this case. Default styling of an element (this particular effect I wanted) can be an ally. Keryx's point of view seems to be dominant, I fear. Even the teacher at my web design class seems to think that using EMs to style citations is valid. Yet she generally encourages web standards... :( Cordially, David -- *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Fieldsets outside of forms. Was: Safari 3.1 and webkit-border-radius
David Dorward skrev: From the spec: The FIELDSET element allows authors to group thematically related controls and labels. --- As I said, I am no minimalist. And yes, I have read the spec. It does not forbid me to use fieldsets outside of forms. Specs use the language of MAY NOT, SHOULD, SHOULD NOT, etc for such scenarios. I do not wish to enforce my interpretation upon anyone. If someone is more of a minimalist in this case than I am - more power to ya! I don't mind. D. It works and has no negative effects that I am aware of. It has the same negative effects as using tables for layout. Nope, I can't see that. Tables for layout means that I lose separation of concerns. I need to change my HTML-code if I want to rearrange stuff. My two fieldsets are no harder to move around than a div. If I do not wish to use fieldsets anymore, there are only three or four small changes to make in my templates for the entire site. Likewise, tables can produce an effect for screen readers where they constantly hear table start, table row, table cell, etc. That would be annoying, distracting and confusing. I can't see that my two fieldsets would be any such thing, nor have I seen any research that claims that to be the case. If someone knows of such research that I've missed, I am more than willing to change my mind. E. I wanted the effect... Effects are the realm of CSS and JS, not markup. Generally true, but for me not worth the trouble in this case. Default styling of an element (this particular effect I wanted) can be an ally. Lars Gunther *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
