W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > August 2005

[whatwg] [WF2] Readonly and default pseudoclass matching

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 23:30:39 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0508232316180.5786@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>
On Sun, 31 Jul 2005, Matthew Raymond wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Note that the text above was reviewed by the editor of the CSS3 UI 
>>>> spec and given the all-clear.
>>>
>>> Of course he gave it the all clear. He's the one who wrote the 
>>> disputed portion of the spec in the first place.
>> 
>> Which disupted section of which spec?
> 
> For CSS:
>    http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/CR-css3-ui-20040511/#pseudo-ro-rw
> 
> For WF2:
>    http://whatwg.org/specs/web-forms/current-work/#relation

CSS isn't being disputed here (or if it is, it's the wrong mailing list).

And the editor of the CSS3 UI spec didn't write the disputed part of the 
WF2 spec; I wrote the latter.


> > If the disputed section is the one I wrote (i.e. the one quoted above) 
> > then no, he didn't; I wrote it.
> 
> I never said he wrote it.

You said "Of course he gave it the all clear. He's the one who wrote the 
disputed portion of the spec in the first place." -- if you didn't mean 
that then I've no idea what you meant, sorry.


> You altered WF2 to make it repeat aspects of what he wrote (CSS3-UI). 
> Obviously the person who wrote the sections of the CSS3-UI spec you're 
> drawing from is going to agree with corrections that reinforce his own 
> content.

Ok, I'm glad you agree that it reinforces CSS3 UI and doesn't conflict 
with it. That is what was intended. We can't really do anything else, 
since CSS3 UI isn't one of the specs WHATWG is doing.


> What was wrong with the revision I suggested?...
> 
> | Matches form control elements that have the readonly attribute set,
> | and to which the readonly attribute applies (thus radio buttons will
> | never match this, regardless of the value of the attribute), as well
> | as other elements defined by this specification that are defined as
> | read-only under the CSS3 Basic User Interface Module.

Well, the second part doesn't say anything (it's redundant with CSS3 UI). 
The whole point of the section is to say which elements defined by WF2 
match the definition of CSS3 UI.

 
>>> In a scenario with script, when would you disable the <input readonly> 
>>> element specifically and in markup rather than disabling a parent 
>>> <fieldset>?
>> 
>> There might not be a parent <fieldset>. In any case, what's the 
>> difference?
> 
> So, when am I going to need to disable a single read-only control 
> independently of other controls? Not seeing a use case here.

One possibility would be viewing a database view where the user has rights 
to edit a field on some records but not others (e.g. allowed to edit the 
customer's start date but only if the customer hasn't started yet). As you 
flip through records, the field becomes read-only or not. It's not 
disabled, because the data is still relevant, even though it can't be 
edited. (Indeed in XForms "enabled" is spelt "relevant", IIRC.)

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 23 August 2005 16:30:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:58:42 UTC