- From: Bert Bos <bert@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 18:48:26 +0200
- To: W3C CSS <www-style@w3.org>
On Tuesday 25 October 2005 20:55, Matthew Raymond wrote: > The term "read-only" is not a synonym for "user-alterable". It has > UI and form submission implications that are unrelated to one's > ability to edit element contents. While the styling of user-alterable > elements has merit, tying user-alterability to and element's > read-only property does not. If we are to have selectors for > user-alterability specifically, we need to separate them from the > concept of read-only. The question is on the agenda of the CSS WG, but it may take a while before we get to it. My estimate is that we won't start discussing it until CSS 2.1 is a CR again. That said, I think that a distinction between ':read-write' and ':editable' (hypothetical name) is indeed useful. In an editor, you can have a form control that is both ':read-only' and ':editable', or vice versa: ':read-write' and not ':editable'. The latter may happen if the document you are editing is a template with some parts that cannot be edited. So I think it is reasonable to only apply ':read-write' to form controls of which the user can change the value. On the other hand, I'm not sure we should actually introduce ':editable'. It would only apply to WYSIWYG editors and those will ignore it, because (1) if they are truly WYSIWYG, they will approximate a browser's rendering instead and (2) their UI is (hopefully) independent of the document being edited. Bert -- Bert Bos ( W 3 C ) http://www.w3.org/ http://www.w3.org/people/bos W3C/ERCIM bert@w3.org 2004 Rt des Lucioles / BP 93 +33 (0)4 92 38 76 92 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France
Received on Wednesday, 26 October 2005 16:49:11 UTC