- From: Matthew Raymond <mattraymond@earthlink.net>
- Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 22:57:54 -0400
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