- From: Brad Kemper <brkemper.comcast@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 19:05:39 -0800
- To: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- Cc: Mikko Rantalainen <mikko.rantalainen@peda.net>, www-style@w3.org
On Nov 11, 2008, at 4:50 PM, Lachlan Hunt wrote: > Mikko Rantalainen wrote: >> 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. > > You haven't explained why this is a real problem. Links already > have two other pseudo classes that can be used to match them: :link > and :visited, which more accurately reflect the states that a link > can be in. The :enabled and :disabled pseudo classes clearly > weren't designed to address the link use cases and we have no reason > for them to. I don't see any reason to not have links that can be enabled and disabled. They are often used in the same sort of roles as buttons and submit inputs.
Received on Wednesday, 12 November 2008 03:06:30 UTC