Editorial: more natural wording for form-associated custom element
#7400
Conversation
Kaleidea
force-pushed
the
editorial-form-associated
branch
from
d7ded23
to
eff6f0e
Compare
| <p>An <span>autonomous custom element</span> is called a <dfn export>form-associated custom | ||
| element</dfn> if the element is associated with a <span>custom element definition</span> whose | ||
| <p>A <dfn export>form-associated custom element</dfn> is a form control that is an | ||
| <span>autonomous custom element</span> and a <span>form-associated element</span>. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think this works as this makes the definition circular.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
No. FACE is_a (ACE & FAE). ACE is not defined in terms of form and FAE is not defined in terms of custom elements, so the graph is acyclic.
FAE is a syn for "form control" (non-defined), so I don't think that's what you referred to.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not sure why you resolved this as it seems there is a misunderstanding. The problem is that FAE is defined in terms of FACE.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Misclick. FAE: "A number of the elements are form-associated elements, which means they can have a form owner."
I consider this a complete definition, but it could be better.
All types of FAE are listed there, including FACE, indeed. It would be problematic if the more generic set's definition relied on the more specific set's def. FAE's def. needs clarification if that's the impression. What do you suggest?
I was also concerned about a lack of definition for "form control". Is that 100% synonymous with FAE and can we include it?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
FAE is a category (a set of elements). As such the essential part of its definition is not that text, but the list below. Which is also why FACE needs to be defined in terms of ACE and the specific bit set on the definition.
Form control / widget is probably something that needs to be cleaned up at some point, yes.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I see. It would be an error to define the superset in terms of its subsets, so I erred on assuming the better interpretation.
Form control / widget is probably something that needs to be cleaned up at some point, yes.
To alleviate the above conceptual difference (which you've called "confusion"), I've clarified the definition of FAE/FC to be self-standing and more informative:
https://whatpr.org/whatwg-html/7400/forms.html#form-associated-element
There are a few usages of the term "form control" which I'll cross-ref soon if this approach is agreeable.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This doesn't work. As I said form-associated element is a category and places that reference it treat it as such.
Kaleidea
force-pushed
the
editorial-form-associated
branch
from
eff6f0e
to
90aeb52
Compare
…ted element` Previously the link from `form-associated custom element` to `form-associated element` was hard to explore: `form owner` in a section below -> `form-associated element`.
Kaleidea
force-pushed
the
editorial-form-associated
branch
from
90aeb52
to
b7f567b
Compare
This defines
form-associated custom elementin terms ofform-associated elementandautonomous custom element.Previously the link was multiple steps and hard to explore:
form ownerin a section below ->form-associated elementChanged:
/custom-elements.html ( diff )
/forms.html ( diff )