- From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 23:51:02 +0100
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- CC: www-style <www-style@w3.org>
fantasai wrote:
> Lachlan Hunt wrote:
>> Boris Zbarsky wrote:
>>> I probably even agree that <input type="hidden"> shouldn't match
>>> :enabled/:disabled, but I think the Selectors text as it stands
>>> doesn't really say what we want it to say...
>>
>> Agreed.
>
> Well, the Selectors spec is fixable. Daniel and I are actively
> editing it now. However I don't think I agree that :enabled/:disabled
> should not apply to type="hidden". The distinction does exist for
> hidden controls as well, does it not?
Yes, you can use the disabled attribute on them as well, so it could be
defined that:
<input type="hidden"> matches :enabled, and
<input type="hidden" disabled> matches :disabled.
I don't mind which alternative is chosen, though it might make more
sense to use a definition in Selectors that lets the markup language
itself define which elements match the pseudo-classes, as has been
suggested in a previous thread on this list.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2008Oct/0161.html
> An interesting question would be what happens if I write
> input[type="hidden"] { display: inline; }
> Would I get nothing? A readonly input control? Something else?
You can test that for yourself in browsers. I tested Opera and Firefox,
they didn't render anything, which seems sensible. But I'm not sure how
that's relevant to the issue.
--
Lachlan Hunt - Opera Software
http://lachy.id.au/
http://www.opera.com/
Received on Thursday, 30 October 2008 22:51:55 UTC