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

Re: CSS3-UI revisited

From: Bert Bos <bert@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 18:48:26 +0200
To: W3C CSS <www-style@w3.org>
Message-Id: <200510261848.26839.bert@w3.org>

On Tuesday 25 October 2005 20:55, Matthew Raymond wrote:

>    The term "read-only" is not a synonym for "user-alterable". It has
> UI and form submission implications that are unrelated to one's
> ability to edit element contents. While the styling of user-alterable
> elements has merit, tying user-alterability to and element's
> read-only property does not. If we are to have selectors for
> user-alterability specifically, we need to separate them from the
> concept of read-only.

The question is on the agenda of the CSS WG, but it may take a while 
before we get to it. My estimate is that we won't start discussing it 
until CSS 2.1 is a CR again.

That said, I think that a distinction between ':read-write' and 
':editable' (hypothetical name) is indeed useful.

In an editor, you can have a form control that is both ':read-only' and 
':editable', or vice versa: ':read-write' and not ':editable'. The 
latter may happen if the document you are editing is a template with 
some parts that cannot be edited.

So I think it is reasonable to only apply ':read-write' to form controls 
of which the user can change the value.

On the other hand, I'm not sure we should actually introduce 
':editable'. It would only apply to WYSIWYG editors and those will 
ignore it, because (1) if they are truly WYSIWYG, they will approximate 
a browser's rendering instead and (2) their UI is (hopefully) 
independent of the document being edited.



Bert
-- 
  Bert Bos                                ( W 3 C ) http://www.w3.org/
  http://www.w3.org/people/bos                               W3C/ERCIM
  bert@w3.org                             2004 Rt des Lucioles / BP 93
  +33 (0)4 92 38 76 92            06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France
Received on Wednesday, 26 October 2005 16:49:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:41 GMT