- From: Allan Beaufour <abeaufour@novell.com>
- Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 17:32:17 +0200
- To: <www-style@w3.org>
>>> Fre, sep 2, 2005 kl. 9:18 am skrev Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com> i meddelelse <4317FCBD.7040803@disruptive-innovations.com>: > Allan Beaufour wrote: >> I've thought some more about this, and the above is what is meant in an > XForms >> content. It also mimics how :enabled/:disabled works for HTML content, >> because that is also tied closely together with an attribute on the element. > >> So maybe having an :editable selector wouldn't be such a bad idea. >> >> If you are designing a form, based on an editor template where you can only >> edit some parts of the form, the form would have parts that are :editable by > >> you and some that are not. Input fields can be styled depending on whether >> they will be :read- only or :read- write to the user, no matter the :editable >> state of the part they live in. > > > Hmmm. So you mean :editable and :read- write are not synonyms, right? Correct. > I think I understand what you have in mind here: in a browser, a text field is > :read- write if the user can type chars in the text field, and it's editable > if for instance the user can select it, type on the delete key and see it go > away? Yes. > If that's what you have in mind, then yes, that's a very good catch, and > an important one. But in the specific case of text fields where user input > can affect the value of the element OR the contents/model of the element, I > think the names of both :read- write and :editable will be highly confusing. I'm tempted to say that many things in CSS are :) But yes, I see your point. Problem is, I do not have a better naming scheme at hand, except maybe :contentEditable... But that's "just syntax" :), as long as we can agree on the semantics. ... Allan
Received on Friday, 2 September 2005 15:34:00 UTC