Daniel Glazman wrote: > > David Hyatt wrote: >> >> Another (IMO simpler) idea would be to just have label match the same >> pseudo-classes that the control does, i.e., if a checkbox is :checked, >> then the label can match :checked too. Same for :disabled, :enabled, >> :indeterminate, and :focus. I don't see any reason to introduce new >> selectors to solve this problem. > > Let's go back in time for a second since this issue was raised precisely > 3 years ago : my opinion as both Selectors' editor and CSS WG > co-chairman is that this issue is outside of the scope of the CSS > Working Group and it's up to the markup language to state that this or > that state set on the control is mirrored onto the label having a > |for| attribute targeting that control. To summarize, it's IMHO an > HTML5 issue. > Of course, that's just me but I'll support that idea until my last drop > of blood ;-) > The ultimate way of preventing CSS WG co-chairmans from perishing on barricades: 1) Add 'checkbox' and 'radio' to the list of allowed values of the 'type' attribute of the <button>. 2) To enable CSS on the element. So you can define this: <button type="radio">Click Me!</button> <button type="radio">Or Me!</button> without the need of that artificial label thing at all. -- Andrew Fedoniouk. http://terrainformatica.comReceived on Thursday, 16 October 2008 16:07:02 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:55:15 GMT