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

Re: Svar: Re: Request for specific changes to CSS3-UI

From: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 09:18:21 +0200
Message-ID: <4317FCBD.7040803@disruptive-innovations.com>
To: Allan Beaufour <abeaufour@novell.com>
Cc: www-style@w3.org

Allan Beaufour wrote:

> I've thought some more about this, and the above is what is meant in an XForms 
> content. It also mimics how :enabled/:disabled works for HTML content, 
> because that is also tied closely together with an attribute on the element. 
> So maybe having an :editable selector wouldn't be such a bad idea.
> 
> If you are designing a form, based on an editor template where you can only 
> edit some parts of the form, the form would have parts that are :editable by 
> you and some that are not. Input fields can be styled depending on whether 
> they will be :read-only or :read-write to the user, no matter the :editable 
> state of the part they live in.


Hmmm. So you mean :editable and :read-write are not synonyms, right? I think
I understand what you have in mind here: in a browser, a text field is
:read-write if the user can type chars in the text field, and it's editable if
for instance the user can select it, type on the delete key and see it go away?

If that's what you have in mind, then yes, that's a very good catch, and
an important one. But in the specific case of text fields where user input can
affect the value of the element OR the contents/model of the element, I
think the names of both :read-write and :editable will be highly confusing.

</Daniel>
Received on Friday, 2 September 2005 07:18:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:40 GMT