Re: Selectors Tests

On Nov 11, 2008, at 8:30 PM, Lachlan Hunt wrote:

> Brad Kemper wrote:
>> On Nov 11, 2008, at 4:50 PM, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
>>> 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.
>
> Allowing links to be disabled would be something for the HTMLWG to  
> consider, but it would require clear use cases, and there haven't  
> been any presented.  If this was something that authors really  
> wanted, then it's very likely that they would have found  
> workarounds, which isn't too hard to do.
>
> e.g. Attaching an event listener that cancels the default action  
> when clicked, and adding a class name like class="disabled" which  
> can be used for styling.  (If authors are doing this, or something  
> else that gives equivalent results, then please raise the issue on  
> public-html and present the examples.)
>
> The reason to not have them without such use cases is that defining  
> and implementing the feature has a cost and that cost needs to be  
> justified.  If there aren't any real use cases, then authors aren't  
> going to use it and then implementing it would be a waste of time  
> and resources.

Its a bit of a circular argument isn't it? You're saying that you need  
use cases in the wild in order to consider it, but any such use cases  
that exist go to show that it isn't needed because there are  
workarounds, since their existence would require workarounds. In my  
own case, I prefer to use A[nchor] tags instead of buttons or submit  
inputs, because I can style them much more reliably.

I do, however, understand and accept your argument that it is an HTML  
issue first, before it is ever a CSS issue, if the CSSWG is absolved  
from determining on its own what is considered disable-able or not.

Received on Wednesday, 12 November 2008 06:48:05 UTC