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

Re: CSS3-UI revisited

From: Matthew Raymond <mattraymond@earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 15:05:04 -0400
Message-ID: <435FD360.7030809@earthlink.net>
To: dolphinling <lists@dolphinling.net>
CC: W3C CSS List <www-style@w3.org>

dolphinling wrote:
> Matthew Raymond wrote:
>>dolphinling wrote:
>>>Without having read the CSS3-UI spec (I will (when should I get to it 
>>>by?)), how about the following change?
>>>
>>>| CSS3-UI applies only to form elements.
>>
>>   If you mean that the /selectors/ in CSS3-UI only apply to form
>>elements, that would solve some problems but not all of them. For
>>instance, it wouldn't solve the problem of an <input readonly> element
>>matching :read-write in an editor. It also wouldn't solve the problem of
>>disabled controls matching :read-only. Remember that :read-only and
>>:read-write are defined with regards to "user-alterability" and not by
>>any definition of read-only or read-write in XForms or HTML.
> 
> Okay. So then my stance is that CSS3-UI should only apply to form 
> elements _and_ those things should be fixed. ;)

   The way I redefine :read-only and :read-write, an element must be
defined in the markup language as being capable of supporting semantic
read-only or read-write states, and it must be possible to set those
states in markup. With that kind of definition, I'm not sure the
limitation to form controls is useful. For example, in the cases of
:in-range and :out-of-range, it may prevent things like an element being
styled differently if it's inside or outside of the bounds of its parent
element. Unnecessary restrictions are not desirable.
Received on Wednesday, 26 October 2005 19:04:44 GMT

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