- From: Matthew Paul Thomas <mpt@myrealbox.com>
- Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 10:10:13 +1200
On Mar 30, 2006, at 6:15 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote: > > Single select: > Is it conforming for an option to be both selected and disabled? (I > think it shouldn't be conforming.) Agreed. If you're not permitted to choose, the whole <select> should be disabled. > And analogously: Is is conforming for a radio button to be both > checked and disabled if the whole set is not disabled? (This one is > harder to check, but anyway...) I think it shouldn't be, for the same reason. > Is it conforming to have no option that is marked selected? (I think > allowing this is safe.) I'm pretty sure we've been through this before -- I think it shouldn't be, ratemy*.com thinks it should be, and there are more of those sites than there are of me. :-) (Why they don't just use a set of numbered <input type="submit">s, which would work even with JavaScript off, I have no idea.) > Select multiple: > Is it conforming for an option to be both selected and disabled? How > do native widgets handle this? > ... I don't see why not, since it wouldn't be adding any new elements or attributes, though it wouldn't be very commonly used. Breakfast: __________________________________________ |[/] Egg |A| |[/] Bacon |:| |[ ] Sausage |:| |[ ] Lobster Thermidor a Crevette |:| |: : Baked beans (currently unavailable) |:| |[ ] Tomato |:| |:/: Spam |V| """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" To distinguish between selected disabled and unselected disabled options, browsers would need to start including a checkbox for each item in a <select multiple>. But then they should have been doing that all along, both to distinguish between <select multiple> and <select size>, and to save people from having to know Ctrl+click/Command+click. -- Matthew Paul Thomas http://mpt.net.nz/
Received on Thursday, 30 March 2006 14:10:13 UTC