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 debate
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
ex
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 co
ntent.
But thats enough of that now.
Cheers
Jackie
- Original Message -
From: "Steve Green" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2007 10:42 AM
Subject: RE: [WSG] Re: Use of Fieldsets other than in form?
Jackie, you said "I really didn't want a
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
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?
> &quo
"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 pro
-
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 -
&
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.
*
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 greas
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 th
At 6/5/2007 05:54 AM, Nick Fitzsimons wrote:
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.
Hi Ni
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
**
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
Un
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
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
Lucien Stals wrote wrote:
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.
You are, but unfortunately user agents are then free to misunderstand you.
Fieldset was defined in the co
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 elemen
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 seman
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 pro
> 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'
> 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
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 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
Joseph R. B. Taylor wrote:
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.
That's how the whole tables-used-for-layout tag soup of last century
#x27;m sure no one is really "hell-bent on abusing the standards".
Cheers
Jackie
- Original Message -
From: "Ben Buchanan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 12:36 PM
Subject: Re: [WSG] Re: Use of Fieldsets other than in form?
Can fields
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 looph
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
On Tuesday 05 June 2007 13:49:45 Nick Gleitzman wrote:
> Similarly, why use a when a simple 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
t
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
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
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 sp
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".
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
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
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 ev
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 impor
36 matches
Mail list logo
