W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > January 2011

[Bug 11794] We should handle the case of a bunch of required controls all being hidden at once — the author shouldn't have to also go in an remove the 'required' attribute on each one. Maybe make hidden="" bar things from constraint validation?

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 21:42:16 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1PfJJg-0000mC-QS@jessica.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11794

--- Comment #5 from Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> 2011-01-18 21:42:16 UTC ---
The issue with overloading @hidden this way is that anytime it's used the
browser would have to check for form controls that are descendants of the node
whose @hidden is being changed.  This means either making @hidden changes
slower in all cases, or optimizing for the case of no form descendants and
maintaining state on ancestors of form controls (making form control insertion
and/or removal slower).

For fieldset's @disabled what Gecko does is that fieldsets observe changes to
the DOM under them, and when form controls are added add them to a list stored
in the fieldset.  This makes @disabled changes fast, and only affects
insertion/removal of nodes under fieldsets (and in a pretty minor way).  It
costs a bit more memory per fieldset node, but those are rare.  This approach
wouldn't work for arbitrary @hidden, because the extra memory cost per node for
_all_ elements doesn't seem desirable...

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 18 January 2011 21:42:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 18 January 2011 21:42:27 GMT