W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > January 2005

Re: [CSS3] UI element states pseudo-classes

From: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>
Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2005 00:12:30 -0800
Message-ID: <003801c4f622$f6d28810$0c01a8c0@TERRA>
To: "Boris Zbarsky" <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>, <www-style@w3.org>


| It doesn't, actually.  Apart from the issue Laurens pointed out, :checked
| applies to <option> elements in HTML, say....

Why not
option[selected]?
why selected state needs to be named as ":checked"?

| Except that somet things may be neither :enabled nor :disabled...  So it's 
not
| enough to just have a single boolean value, since we're trying to indicate 
3
| possible states.

Boris, it is a sort of esoteric statement for me.
Could you provide a sample of element having
:enabled :disabled and :neither-enabled-nor-disabled state.

Andrew Fedoniouk.
http://terrainformatica.com


Original Message from: "Boris Zbarsky" <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
To: "Andrew Fedoniouk" <news@terrainformatica.com>; <www-style@w3.org>
Sent: Saturday, January 08, 2005 8:30 PM
Subject: Re: [CSS3] UI element states pseudo-classes


|
| Andrew Fedoniouk wrote:
| > Reading "UI element states pseudo-classes" [1] I think that make sense:
| >
| > 1)  to remove :checked  pseudo class as it mimics exactly
| > input[type="radio"][checked]  and input[type="checkbox"][checked] 
selectors
|
| It doesn't, actually.  Apart from the issue Laurens pointed out, :checked
| applies to <option> elements in HTML, say....
|
| > 2)  to remove :enabled  pseudo class as it is enough to have :disabled
|
| Except that somet things may be neither :enabled nor :disabled...  So it's 
not
| enough to just have a single boolean value, since we're trying to indicate 
3
| possible states.
|
| -Boris
|
| 
Received on Sunday, 9 January 2005 08:12:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:35 GMT