W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > November 2008

Re: Selectors Tests

From: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2008 21:03:56 -0800
Message-ID: <49151DBC.8060506@terrainformatica.com>
To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
CC: www-style@w3.org

Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> Andrew Fedoniouk wrote:
>> Do you have real life examples for the :enabled then?
> Not offhand, no.

I've seen uses of $(":input") but I suspect that :enabled will not be used.

>> Do you have full list of elements in Gecko that get :enabled by default?
>> <a>, <object>/<embed>, <frame>,<frameset>, <input>, <select>, 
>> <textarea>... what else?
> At the moment, in a vanilla Gecko, <input>, <button>, <select>, 
> <option>, <optgroup>, <textarea>.

So these are elements that know about @disabled. Why not to use 
[disabled] as a selector then?

<option> (passive element) and e.g. <input> (active element) are so 
different that I think you will never see things like
*:enabled in the wild. That is why

form *:input {} makes practical sense and

form *:enabled {} does not.

By the way while we are on this @disabled page...

This chapter:

Stays: "This [disabled] attribute is inherited but local declarations 
override the inherited value."

I never saw any UA (except of mine which is not an UA in comon sense) 
that obey this rule.

IE6 makes brave attempt to implement this - at least it shows
the input here:

   <div disabled>
     <input type="text" value="Hi!" />

with grayed text but it is editable. Not quite fair I would say.

FF, Opera and WebKit are ignoring this all together.

> But there are ways (XTF, right now) to write extensions that support 
> various XML vocabulaties and allow this state on elements in those 
> vocabularies.
> -Boris

XTF... what about XBL then? Those <input>s in shadow trees... how they 
interact with :disabled/:enabled thing?

Andrew Fedoniouk.

Received on Saturday, 8 November 2008 05:04:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:41 UTC