- From: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>
- Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2008 21:03:56 -0800
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- CC: www-style@w3.org
Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> Andrew Fedoniouk wrote:
>> Do you have real life examples for the :enabled then?
>
> Not offhand, no.
I've seen uses of $(":input") but I suspect that :enabled will not be used.
>
>> Do you have full list of elements in Gecko that get :enabled by default?
>> <a>, <object>/<embed>, <frame>,<frameset>, <input>, <select>,
>> <textarea>... what else?
>
> At the moment, in a vanilla Gecko, <input>, <button>, <select>,
> <option>, <optgroup>, <textarea>.
So these are elements that know about @disabled. Why not to use
[disabled] as a selector then?
<option> (passive element) and e.g. <input> (active element) are so
different that I think you will never see things like
*:enabled in the wild. That is why
form *:input {} makes practical sense and
form *:enabled {} does not.
By the way while we are on this @disabled page...
This chapter:
http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/interact/forms.html#h-17.12.1
Stays: "This [disabled] attribute is inherited but local declarations
override the inherited value."
I never saw any UA (except of mine which is not an UA in comon sense)
that obey this rule.
IE6 makes brave attempt to implement this - at least it shows
the input here:
<div disabled>
<input type="text" value="Hi!" />
<select><option>Ho!</option></select>
</div>
with grayed text but it is editable. Not quite fair I would say.
FF, Opera and WebKit are ignoring this all together.
>
> But there are ways (XTF, right now) to write extensions that support
> various XML vocabulaties and allow this state on elements in those
> vocabularies.
>
> -Boris
>
XTF... what about XBL then? Those <input>s in shadow trees... how they
interact with :disabled/:enabled thing?
--
Andrew Fedoniouk.
http://terrainformatica.com
Received on Saturday, 8 November 2008 05:04:47 UTC