Re: Selectors Tests

Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> Mikko Rantalainen wrote:
>>> There is a subtle definitional difference here.  For example <a 
>>> href="..."> would match your definition of :interactive but does NOT 
>>> match the current definition of :enabled (on purpose).
>> Why is that?
> Because links can't be disabled, and the spec explicitly says that 
> anything that's :enabled can be :disabled under other circumstances.

OK. I think that the correct fix for this problem would be to allow
links to be disabled by scripts. I'm not sure about the use cases but
they're probably analogous to use cases for disabling submit button with
a script (perhaps a link to a help page that describes the use of the
form and the link would be disabled if the form were disabled).

Disabled script feature could be useful even if :enabled didn't require it.

> If you mean why does it say _that_, then I don't know offhand.  And it 
> doesn't matter much, because this language is going away anyway.

That was my point. Why is it important for a currently enabled element
to be able to be disabled (possibly only in the past)? All I care at
that moment is that it's enabled at that time.


Received on Tuesday, 11 November 2008 09:37:13 UTC