RE: [WSG] Textarea attribues.
The problem with textarea is, how it should be displayed, when CSS is off? Should it default to 5, 10, 15, 20, ... rows? How wide should it be? Wide enough to write a poem, or as wide as the entire page? But that's a UA issue, and UAs handle the same thing for inputs and selects already. Whether they do a good job or a bad one is certainly up for question, but taking the what if CSS is off approach can lead to an argument for reintroducing any presentational stuff back into the markup...i.e. it's a slippery slope. That's exactly what I was thinking as well. Who is to decide how long a horizontal rule hr / should be? Or, what the default font size a header h1 should be? I like the idea of the WHATWG 'wrap' attribute, but again, wouldn't this be purely presentational? If the line breaks needed to be inserted into the inputted text couldn't that be done on the server side easier than trusting the client's machine to do the work? Sorry about all the theoretical questions... it's a Monday! :) Jough *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
[WSG] Textarea attribues.
This subject has probably risen more times than one can count on their fingers, but I have been unable to find the argument online. What, exactly, is the idea behind keeping the attributes of rows and cols a requirement of a textarea in XHTML 1.0? It seems to me that these values reflect formatting rather than valid information. Jough ***List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfmUnsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfmHelp: [EMAIL PROTECTED]***
RE: [WSG] Textarea attribues.
And speaking of XHTML 1.0, I was surprised to also find a lot of presentational attributes still left in the table-related elements (table, tr, th, td, col etc), even in strict. Surely width, border, cellspacing, cellpadding, valign, halign could have been expunged from strict? True, but unlike 'row' and 'col' for textarea which are required, all attributes you have mentioned are implied [1]. What makes these different? I agree that there should be NO presentation attributes in XHTML strict, but if we are to have some why would they be required? [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd Jough *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Textarea attribues.
David Dorward wrote: On Fri, Sep 29, 2006 at 10:40:37PM +0100, Patrick H. Lauke wrote: And speaking of XHTML 1.0, I was surprised to also find a lot of presentational attributes still left in the table-related elements (table, tr, th, td, col etc), even in strict. Surely width, border, cellspacing, cellpadding, valign, halign could have been expunged from strict? The design predates CSS 2, so there wasn't a suitable alternative. XHTML 1.0 is dated 26 January 2000, while CSS 2 is 12 May 1998 ... or am I missing something here? 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 __ Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Textarea attribues.
On Fri, Sep 29, 2006 at 11:12:10PM +0100, Patrick H. Lauke wrote: The design predates CSS 2, so there wasn't a suitable alternative. XHTML 1.0 is dated 26 January 2000, while CSS 2 is 12 May 1998 ... or am I missing something here? XHTML 1.0 is a direct port (well, almost) of HTML 4.01 to XML. HTML 4.01 is a bug fix to HTML 4.0. HTML 4.0 came out in December '97. -- David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Textarea attribues.
Jough wrote: True, but unlike 'row' and 'col' for textarea which are required, all attributes you have mentioned are implied [1]. What makes these different? I agree that there should be NO presentation attributes in XHTML strict, but if we are to have some why would they be required? [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd Ah, you're right, forgot about that...that's even worse, definitely. And yes, based on the definition of those attributes, there's really nothing beyond the presentation intended This attribute specifies the number of visible text lines. [...] This attribute specifies the visible width in average character widths. Maybe somebody from the W3C HTML list could enlighten us as to why these attributes were kept as required? Is it just for backwards compatibility? 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 __ Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Textarea attribues.
Jough wrote: This subject has probably risen more times than one can count on their fingers, but I have been unable to find the argument online. What, exactly, is the idea behind keeping the attributes of 'rows' and 'cols' a requirement of a textarea in XHTML 1.0? It seems to me that these values reflect formatting rather than valid information. They provide useful size information in the absence of CSS. Unfortunately, UAs traditionally render textareas without an explicit size as a tiny little box that's difficult to use, so there was a practical need for them rather than a semantic need. However, the cols attribute is useful in conjunction with the non-standard wrap attribute (which is currently being standardised by the WHATWG) because it adds semantic information about where to insert line breaks. e.g. textarea wrap=hard cols=72 wrap lines at least every 72 characters and those line breaks will be submitted to the server. -- Lachlan Hunt http://lachy.id.au/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Textarea attribues.
David Dorward wrote: On Fri, Sep 29, 2006 at 11:12:10PM +0100, Patrick H. Lauke wrote: The design predates CSS 2, so there wasn't a suitable alternative. XHTML 1.0 is dated 26 January 2000, while CSS 2 is 12 May 1998 ... or am I missing something here? XHTML 1.0 is a direct port (well, almost) of HTML 4.01 to XML. HTML 4.01 is a bug fix to HTML 4.0. HTML 4.0 came out in December '97. Ah, gotcha. It's starting to make sense, in a perverse sort of way. It still (maybe) leaves the question why XHTML 1.1 decided to keep them in the forms modules, since 1.1 is meant as a consistent, forward-looking document type cleanly separated from the deprecated, legacy functionality of HTML 4 Then again, maybe they felt that rows and cols weren't legacy functionality for some reason... 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 __ Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Textarea attribues.
Jough wrote: What, exactly, is the idea behind keeping the attributes of ‘rows’ and ‘cols’ a requirement of a textarea in XHTML 1.0? It seems to me that these values reflect formatting rather than valid information. The problem with textarea is, how it should be displayed, when CSS is off? Should it default to 5, 10, 15, 20, ... rows? How wide should it be? Wide enough to write a poem, or as wide as the entire page? So, it's pretty clear, there has to be some way of telling the non-CSS browsers how to large the textarea should be. Maybe the textarea could have some default values, which would make the cols and rows optional, but it's pretty hard to agree what those default values should be. Maybe the guys in W3C just couldn't agree on a default value. -- Rene Saarsoo *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Textarea attribues.
Rene Saarsoo wrote: The problem with textarea is, how it should be displayed, when CSS is off? Should it default to 5, 10, 15, 20, ... rows? How wide should it be? Wide enough to write a poem, or as wide as the entire page? But that's a UA issue, and UAs handle the same thing for inputs and selects already. Whether they do a good job or a bad one is certainly up for question, but taking the what if CSS is off approach can lead to an argument for reintroducing any presentational stuff back into the markup...i.e. it's a slippery slope. 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 __ Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
