- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 08:46:09 -0500
- To: Mikko Rantalainen <mikko.rantalainen@peda.net>
- CC: www-style@w3.org
Mikko Rantalainen wrote: >> There is a subtle definitional difference here. For example <a >> href="..."> would match your definition of :interactive but does NOT >> match the current definition of :enabled (on purpose). > > Why is that? Because links can't be disabled, and the spec explicitly says that anything that's :enabled can be :disabled under other circumstances. If you mean why does it say _that_, then I don't know offhand. And it doesn't matter much, because this language is going away anyway. -Boris
Received on Monday, 10 November 2008 13:55:25 UTC