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

Re: [CSS3] UI element states pseudo-classes

From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2005 14:13:59 -0600
Message-ID: <41E19087.4030305@mit.edu>
To: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>
CC: www-style@w3.org

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

An option can be selected without having a "selected" attribute.  As for why use 
:checked, why not?  Selecting an <option> is conceptually identical to checking 
a <checkbox> (in fact, lynx implements <select> as a set of checkboxes).

> Boris, it is a sort of esoteric statement for me.
> Could you provide a sample of element having
> :enabled :disabled

That doesn't happen.

> and :neither-enabled-nor-disabled state.

This one is "any element that can't ever be enabled".  The definition of 
:disabled says "an element that _could_ be enabled, but isn't right now".  So 
for example, I would say that <html:html> should not match :disabled, since 
there is no concept of "enabling" for the <html:html> element.

Received on Sunday, 9 January 2005 20:14:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:16 UTC