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 15:09:38 -0800
Message-ID: <003201c4f6a0$4b718e70$0c01a8c0@TERRA>
To: "Laurens Holst" <lholst@students.cs.uu.nl>, <www-style@w3.org>

I am not against styling of input elements (including scrollbars btw).
My message just about syntax conventions if you wish:
historically :something notation is a generic one and is about 
which can be applied to or common to *all* elements.
UI states are specific to *particular* elements.
p:checked has no real sense as e.g. html:enabled ((C) Boris Zbarsky, thanks, 
Again these two groups of properties/attributes are in different namespaces
and it is *not a CSS business* to enumerate them all.
It is a bad design to put them in one set of values I guess.
What will happen in the feature if I will want to add "selection" as a UI 
Like "if element has selection then draw it using this style".
We already have problems mixing multiple namespaces in one set of values 
(e.g. alignment).
What else should hit us to force us to learn the lessons?

Andrew Fedoniouk.

Original Message from: "Laurens Holst" <lholst@students.cs.uu.nl>
| Andrew Fedoniouk wrote:
| > | CSS3 does define the :valid and :invalid attributes:
| > |
| > | http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/CR-css3-ui-20040511/#pseudo-validity
| > |
| > | When to match such pseudo-classes is of course up to the user agent. 
| > | that is basically valid for all CSS selectors.
| >
| > This is a good and symptomatic example.
| > See, even in CSS spec. itself there are no one place where you can 
| > all selectors.
| > http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/CR-css3-selectors-20011113/ defines one set 
| > :checked (sic!)
| > and UI module defines one more set (specific for XForms).
| Well... I agree it is somewhat inconvenient to not have all selectors in
| one place, but because of the modularization and the fact that one
| module can be completed before the other is, it cannot be avoided, I
| think. I'm not really bothered by that, though.
| In any case, one of the things CSS is aiming for (er, from what I gather
| at least) is to be able to express the entire styling of a document by
| CSS alone (or at least, mostly), you should keep that in the back of
| your mind. These pseudo-classes are part of that. The UA controls
| whether a checkbox changes state from checked to unchecked, but you
| should be able to express the visual feedback of that by CSS alone. If
| you want to change the looks of checkboxes on your site, ditto.
| If you look at the html stylesheet which can be found in e.g. Mozilla,
| you're already looking at a basic version of that.
| ~Grauw
| -- 
| Ushiko-san! Kimi wa doushite, Ushiko-san!!
Received on Sunday, 9 January 2005 23:09:46 UTC

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