- From: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>
- Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2005 00:12:30 -0800
- To: "Boris Zbarsky" <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>, <www-style@w3.org>
| It doesn't, actually. Apart from the issue Laurens pointed out, :checked | applies to <option> elements in HTML, say.... Why not option[selected]? why selected state needs to be named as ":checked"? | Except that somet things may be neither :enabled nor :disabled... So it's not | enough to just have a single boolean value, since we're trying to indicate 3 | possible states. Boris, it is a sort of esoteric statement for me. Could you provide a sample of element having :enabled :disabled and :neither-enabled-nor-disabled state. Andrew Fedoniouk. http://terrainformatica.com Original Message from: "Boris Zbarsky" <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU> To: "Andrew Fedoniouk" <news@terrainformatica.com>; <www-style@w3.org> Sent: Saturday, January 08, 2005 8:30 PM Subject: Re: [CSS3] UI element states pseudo-classes | | Andrew Fedoniouk wrote: | > Reading "UI element states pseudo-classes" [1] I think that make sense: | > | > 1) to remove :checked pseudo class as it mimics exactly | > input[type="radio"][checked] and input[type="checkbox"][checked] selectors | | It doesn't, actually. Apart from the issue Laurens pointed out, :checked | applies to <option> elements in HTML, say.... | | > 2) to remove :enabled pseudo class as it is enough to have :disabled | | Except that somet things may be neither :enabled nor :disabled... So it's not | enough to just have a single boolean value, since we're trying to indicate 3 | possible states. | | -Boris | |
Received on Sunday, 9 January 2005 08:12:36 UTC