L. David Baron wrote: > I think Boris's point is that the definition has to be written such > that the value of CSS properties has no influence on whether > selectors match. At least I hope that was his point. Indeed, it was. > (The definition of which elements should match :disabled could > perhaps be left to the underlying markup language. However, > Lachlan's definition clearly allows too many factors to influence > that matching.) Right. > Whether an element is display:none absolutely cannot change whether > it matches disabled; otherwise we'd have big problems with > :disabled { display: inline ! important; } Yes, exactly. -BorisReceived on Thursday, 30 October 2008 04:51:50 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 23 January 2023 02:13:31 UTC