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

[whatwg] [WA1] The a element could be empty

From: Jim Ley <jim.ley@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 00:17:51 +0100
Message-ID: <851c8d31050904161758537276@mail.gmail.com>
On 9/5/05, Matthew Raymond <mattraymond at earthlink.net> wrote:
>   None of which are obvious to the average user.

but quite obvious to people who use the IEAK to customise IE's for
corporate roll outs...

> > I never realised FF was so flawed, thanks for correcting me.
> 
>   Is it a flaw? 

Definately, if you disable stylesheets, you should disable
stylesheets, just disabling particular media ones is flawed.

> > I couldn't see the relevance of browsers which didn't support both, as
> > disabled CSS is equivalent for the purposes at discussion.
> 
>   If having a Javascript-capable browser effectively means that you
> have a CSS-capable browser, 

but it doesn't mean that... CSS is optional, as is javascript, there's
no relationship between the 2 things.  Don't fall in the trap of
thinking we're specifying things for the standard configurations of
current browsers - that's how you make the web more inaccessible for
people.

>then you don't need additional Javascript in
> order to hide the button when printing. 

This has never been what I've been discussing - the hiding of the
button is when script is disabled or printing functionality not there
- it's got nothing to do with hiding the button when it is printed,
it's purely to do with not having a control on the screen which does
nothing.

>   I can't find that recommendation in CSS1. 

It's at the end of section 7
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS1#css1-conformance

>As a matter of fact, I
> don't think CSS1 has media types or print-specific properties. 

no, it's purely talking about disabling css.

Jim.
Received on Sunday, 4 September 2005 16:17:51 UTC

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