- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 19:31:44 -0500
Henri Sivonen wrote:
> Single select:
> Is it conforming for an option to be both selected and disabled? (I
> think it shouldn't be conforming.)
I agree with that.
> 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...)
No, I think it should be allowed. There are some cases where, e.g. some
previous option you picked forces certain other checkboxes either on or
off. They're disabled because you can't change them, but, some of them
might need to be on.
> Is it conforming to have no option that is marked selected? (I think
> allowing this is safe.)
It is.
"User agents implementing this specification must select the first
(non-disabled) option element of a single-select select element
with no otherwise-selected items."
Hixie would have said something about it being nonconforming to have no
selected options at that point, and wouldn't have had multiple examples
of <select>s with no selected options, if that was what he meant.
~Elika
Received on Thursday, 30 March 2006 16:31:44 UTC