- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2005 14:13:59 -0600
- To: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>
- CC: www-style@w3.org
Andrew Fedoniouk wrote: > Why not > option[selected]? > why selected state needs to be named as ":checked"? An option can be selected without having a "selected" attribute. As for why use :checked, why not? Selecting an <option> is conceptually identical to checking a <checkbox> (in fact, lynx implements <select> as a set of checkboxes). > Boris, it is a sort of esoteric statement for me. > Could you provide a sample of element having > :enabled :disabled That doesn't happen. > and :neither-enabled-nor-disabled state. This one is "any element that can't ever be enabled". The definition of :disabled says "an element that _could_ be enabled, but isn't right now". So for example, I would say that <html:html> should not match :disabled, since there is no concept of "enabling" for the <html:html> element. -Boris
Received on Sunday, 9 January 2005 20:14:07 UTC