[menu] How should we group checkboxes and radios, and how should we decide if they are checkboxes or radios?

[josepharhar]

The explainer still has two alternative concepts in it:

1. <menuitemcheckbox> and <menuitemradio>
2. <menuitem checkable> with <fieldset checkable=single|multiple>.

I think that we are leaning towards option 2. Does anyone disagree?

Should <menuitem> need a checkable attribute or is being inside a checkable fieldset good enough? In other words, should we allow mixing checkable and non-checkable menuitems inside a <fieldset checkable>?

Should the default value of <fieldset checkable> be checkable=single?

[lukewarlow]

I think 2 but no checkable on the menuitem. That way you can't end up with non checkable mixed in with checkable which feels bad and wrong and more implementation effort to "fix".

I think fieldset as the group is fine. Unless it should have a specific aria role in which case we should mint a new element for it.

One thing is this would change the aria role based on its location in the DOM and the state of its parent. is there precedence for doing that?

[lukewarlow]

One possibility is we reuse the multiple attribute? Rather than checkable=single or checkable=multiple could it just be checkable (can bikeshed the name) and optionally the multiple attribute? This feels like it fits the select model better?

[josepharhar]

I think 2 but no checkable on the menuitem. That way you can't end up with non checkable mixed in with checkable which feels bad and wrong and more implementation effort to "fix".

I agree

One thing is this would change the aria role based on its location in the DOM and the state of its parent. is there precedence for doing that?

Maybe <option> in a <select> vs <select size=4> vs <select multiple> vs <datalist> hooked up to an <input> vs <datalist> hooked up to an <input type=color> etc.

I don't see anything wrong with doing this.

One possibility is we reuse the multiple attribute? Rather than checkable=single or checkable=multiple could it just be checkable (can bikeshed the name) and optionally the multiple attribute? This feels like it fits the select model better?

Yeah that sounds good to me!

<menulist>
  <fieldset checkable>
    <menuitem>radio 1</menuitem>
    <menuitem>radio 2</menuitem>
    <menuitem>radio 3</menuitem>
  </fieldset>
  <fieldset checkable multiple>
    <menuitem>checkbox 1</menuitem>
    <menuitem>checkbox 2</menuitem>
    <menuitem>checkbox 3</menuitem>
  </fieldset>
</menulist>

[scottaohara]

One thing is this would change the aria role based on its location in the DOM and the state of its parent. is there precedence for doing that?

oh is there.... there are a number of elements that have 'contextual roles'. this is largely related to structural markup elements (or - you might think of them under the Sections and grouping content element categories).

but more to your point, this is taking that concept a bit further, but imo, in a way that could improve the authoring experience and reduce author error.

e.g., it's a lot simpler to just declare menuitem elements, and then when needed put them into a group with attributes that refine their behavior / change their role to match (but at least still in the same menuitem category). A lot easier than having to both define the group to identify boundaries, and then add that attribute to each and every menuitem element (without forgetting one) OR introduce the other 2 variant menuitem elements.

Fwiw, i really like the idea of reusing the multiple attribute, rather than having to define values for checkable.

[css-meeting-bot]

The Open UI Community Group just discussed [menu] How should we group checkboxes and radios, and how should we decide if they are checkboxes or radios?, and agreed to the following:

• RESOLVED: group menuitem radios and checkboxes with the fieldset element. the fieldset element will take a checkable attribute with a default value of single, which can be set to multiple to indicate single-select or multi-select

The full IRC log of that discussion

<gregwhitworth> scribenick: gregwhitworth
<gregwhitworth> jarhar: as a part of the proposal we're proposing to add checkbox menu items and radio items and have pre-defined concepts that do cool things
<lwarlow> q+
<gregwhitworth> jarhar: how do we say which type of menu items they are, we could have elements for all of them or some type of grouping approach
<gregwhitworth> jarhar: it would denote that it is a checkbox or a radio
<gregwhitworth> jarhar: this is what I prefer and there is example HTML in the last comment in the issue
<sorvell> q+
<gregwhitworth> jarhar: it will have checkable and multiple it will be checkboxes vs checkable is just radio
<gregwhitworth> domfarolino: I think there was discussion around multiple or checkable
<gregwhitworth> domfarolino: our ideal vision is to just have checkable on fieldset and take a value of multiple
<gregwhitworth> domfarolino: it feels a little disconnected that they need to reason about two different attributes
<gregwhitworth> domfarolino: wanted to make this change to the explainer but wanted feedback
<gregwhitworth> domfarolino: this is a bit of bike-shedding but we're raising it here
<gregwhitworth> ack lwarlow
<gregwhitworth> lwarlow: I was the one that proposed the multiple attribute since that's what we have for select and email
<sorvell> q-
<gregwhitworth> lwarlow: it feels similar in ideas as you're either selecting single or multiple
<gregwhitworth> lwarlow: I think it being an enum is probably also fine, personally I don't think the = or a " " is a huge difference
<gregwhitworth> lwarlow: I still personally lean towards a seperate attribute
<scott4> q+
<gregwhitworth> ack scott4
<jarhar> q+
<gregwhitworth> scott4: similar to what lwarlow said made sense to me, but I don't honestly care if we use one or the other
<gregwhitworth> scott4: does it make sense to have checkable when only a single one needs to be checked?
<gregwhitworth> q+
<gregwhitworth> ack scott
<gregwhitworth> scott4: so that it's not multiple in either sense
<gregwhitworth> domfarolino: what's the relationship of having default checked on what attribute we use on the fieldset
<gregwhitworth> scott4: it's a throwaway comment I suppose, but yes it's probably out of scope for this issue
<gregwhitworth> ack jarhar
<gregwhitworth> jarhar: we already have the selected attribute for options so we should use that
<gregwhitworth> jarhar: I'm for the checkable to have values of single or multiple
<gregwhitworth> jarhar: what happens when you put both attributes on the same time for select
<gregwhitworth> jarhar: that's different than the current multiple attribute
<jarhar> q?
<gregwhitworth> domfarolino: the thing I like about multiple on select we get checkable but we need to know the other and I use one without the other
<gregwhitworth> ack gregwhitworth
<scott4> one attribute sounds fine to me then.
<scott4> but per luke's comment in the meet chat - probably makes more sense to use the checked attribute than the selected attribute
<jarhar> proposed resolution: group menuitem radios and checkboxes with the fieldset element. the fieldset element will take a checkable attribute with a default value of single, which can be set to multiple to indicate single-select or multi-select
<scott4> +1
<sorvell> +1
<lwarlow> +1
<masonf> +1
<jarhar> RESOLVED: group menuitem radios and checkboxes with the fieldset element. the fieldset element will take a checkable attribute with a default value of single, which can be set to multiple to indicate single-select or multi-select

[dbaron]

This came up in whatwg/html#11729 (comment) so it's probably worth discussing again.

In particular, the suggestion there was not to use <fieldset> but instead to group with the name attribute.

I think I can see a few ways we could use that (numbering as 3 and 4 to avoid conflict with the items previously discussed):

	Option 3	Option 4
Checkbox	<menuitem type=checkbox>Show Menubar</menuitem> <menuitem type=checkbox>Show Toolbar</menuitem>	<menuitem checkable=multiple>Show Menubar</menuitem> <menuitem checkable=multiple>Show Toolbar</menuitem>
Radio	<menuitem type=radio name=size>Small</menuitem> <menuitem type=radio name=size>Medium</menuitem> <menuitem type=radio name=size>Large</menuitem>	<menuitem checkable=single name=size>Small</menuitem> <menuitem checkable=single name=size>Medium</menuitem> <menuitem checkable=single name=size>Large</menuitem>

What do folks think about these in comparison to the current options?

[lukewarlow]

I think if we're not relying on a grouping element then we should just use option 1 and mint new elements for the aria roles. But we shouldn't just give up with the idea of a grouping element that enforces all children be either menuitemcheckbox or menuitemradio.

[dbaron]

Also cc @smaug---- who had opinions on this in whatwg/html#11729 (comment)