Hello!
"2.20.2 The command element" section [1] defines the icon attribute. Also,
by looking into the source code of the WA 1.0 specification, I saw there's
an interest in having the icon attribute for menu items and inputs alike.
I'd highly recommend not to define the icon attribute, or any other
attribute with possible relation to presentation. This fuels accusations
that what this specification defines is not "as semantical as" the XHTML 2
specification (I've read some "WHATWG bashing" in some blog posts).
Defining icons and other presentational endeavours must definitely be left
to CSS WG.
Lets take the icon. Designers would immediately want to define the
positioning of the icon: top, right, bottom, left - in pixels, percents,
etc - similar to background position. Then they'll "hack" into the DOM to
change the icon on hover, and do some more.
All this stuff must be defined by the CSS WG.
The WA 1.0 "loosely" defines the icon attribute. That's not an attribute
of a semantical value, it's for a pure presentational purpose.
If Ian Hickson really wants to define the icon attribute in the spec, then
he should go further and offer complete customization over the way the
icon is rendered.
Or should the icon render as normal icons render in the default chrome of
the user agent (most likely of the OS)?
If that's the case, designers won't be happy either (neither myself, being
a designer too). We always like to do different designs.
That being said: remove the icon attribute, or please go further and
explain to me (and all this mailing list readers) why it's a *must* for
this spec. Also, please provide some use cases, for semantical purpose
(not just presentational).
Thanks.
http://whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#the-command
--
http://www.robodesign.ro
ROBO Design - We bring you the future
