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

[whatwg] [WF2] Readonly and default pseudoclass matching

From: Matthew Raymond <mattraymond@earthlink.net>
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 22:57:54 -0400
Message-ID: <42ED8FB2.6040506@earthlink.net>
Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Jul 2005, Matthew Raymond wrote:
>>>>Ian has sadly chosen to change the text to this:
>>>>| 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 elements defined by this specification that are not form controls
>>>>| (namely form, label, datalist, option, optgroup, and fieldset
>>>>| elements).
>>>>
>>>>  First of all, he shouldn't mention "elements...that are not form 
>>>>controls" in the first place, because he's saying that they can be 
>>>>specifically selected by :read-only when the whole point should have 
>>>>been to eliminate anything that might conflict with CSS3-UI, and 
>>>>obviously if we change CSS3-UI to use the XForms definition of 
>>>>:read-only, this will conflict.
>>>
>>>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

> If there is a dispute about a CSS spec, this is the wrong forum.
> Please move such discussions to www-style, 
> where the discussions have a greater-than-zero chance of actually causing 
> the CSS specs to change. :-)

   True, which is why I moved part of this discussion to www-style
already. However, what I'm trying to address is your recent revision of WF2.

> 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 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.

>>>I recommend sending your comments to www-style. As far as WHATWG goes, 
>>>we have to take CSS3 UI as gospel and work from there.
>>
>>   Even so, you could simply refer generally to CSS specifications 
>>without restating their content. By restating content, you make the spec 
>>potentially incompatible with future revisions of the CSS3-UI spec.
> 
> The problem is that CSS3 UI is not clear enough to lead to interoperable 
> specifications in the context of WF2. Thus, it is my responsibility, as 
> editor of WF2, to clarify how the specs interact. As editor, I also take 
> on the responsibility of tracking future revisions of CSS3UI to ensure 
> they do not break us, and that WF2 is updated to track CSS3UI changes. 
> (The same applies to all WF2's dependencies.)

   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.

   There's no reason to rewrite parts of WF2 if it's written to avoid
such problems in the first place.

>>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.
Received on Sunday, 31 July 2005 19:57:54 UTC

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