- From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 16:50:32 -0800
- To: Mikko Rantalainen <mikko.rantalainen@peda.net>
- CC: www-style@w3.org
Mikko Rantalainen wrote: > Boris Zbarsky wrote: >> 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. > > OK. I think that the correct fix for this problem would be to allow > links to be disabled by scripts. You haven't explained why this is a real problem. Links already have two other pseudo classes that can be used to match them: :link and :visited, which more accurately reflect the states that a link can be in. The :enabled and :disabled pseudo classes clearly weren't designed to address the link use cases and we have no reason for them to. > I'm not sure about the use cases but... You really can't address a problem, or even know what the problem is, unless you know what the use cases are. -- Lachlan Hunt - Opera Software http://lachy.id.au/ http://www.opera.com/
Received on Wednesday, 12 November 2008 00:51:24 UTC