Re: [whatwg] [wf2] :read-write pseudoclass description issue
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007, Rikkert Koppes wrote: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-forms/current-work/#relation :read-only Matches form control elements that have the |readonly http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-forms/current-work/#readonly| attribute set, and to which the |readonly http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-forms/current-work/#readonly| attribute applies (thus radio buttons will never match this, regardless of the value of the attribute), as well as elements defined by this specification that are not form controls (namely |form|, |label|, |datalist http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-forms/current-work/#datalist|, |option|, |optgroup|, and |fieldset| elements). :read-write Matches form control elements that do not have the |readonly http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-forms/current-work/#readonly| attribute set (including |password http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-forms/current-work/#password| controls, although technically they should be called writeonly), or to which the attribute doesn't apply (such as radio buttons). A disabled control can still match this pseudo-class; the states are orthogonal. I believe the term orthogonal is incorrect here. Following (the rest of) the text, it occurs to me these pseusoclasses are opposite (mutually exclusive), while orthogonal means, they can both apply, independent of eachother. The new text doesn't mention this. Let me know if it's ok: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#matching-html-elements-using-selectors Cheers, -- Ian Hickson U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A/, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Re: [whatwg] [wf2] :read-write pseudoclass description issue
On Wed, 11 Feb 2009, Rikkert Koppes wrote: However, reading the previous text (in the quoted mail below) again, it occurs to me that was actually intended was A disabled control can still match this pseudo-class; the [disabled and read-write] states are orthogonal. In that sense, the current text is quite a shift. Yeah, this was done to line up more closely with CSS3 UI's definitions. I don't really think they make sense, but it's not HTML5's place to go against what the CSSWG decided. furthermore, some text remarks at [1] - on the read-write definition, first bullet, immutable already includes disabled controls [2] Fixed. text remarks at [2] - on the note (The readonly attribute can also in some cases make an input element immutable.): in which cases not? [3] seems to imply all cases, this should be made clear at the note. It doesn't, e.g., make a radio button immutable. I'm not sure how to make it clearer without repeating spec text over and over though. Cheers, -- Ian Hickson U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A/, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Re: [whatwg] [wf2] :read-write pseudoclass description issue
On Wed, 11 Feb 2009, Rikkert Koppes wrote: At [1] I'd suggest changing the second sentence to When specified and applicable, the element is immutable. [1]: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#attr-input-readonly Yeah, I keep thinking of doing something like that. The reason I haven't yet is that I don't want to go down the route of people seeing that and thinking that that means that other things in that section might apply even when they don't (the intro to that section explicitly says that nothing there applies if the attributes aren't applicable). -- Ian Hickson U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A/, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Re: [whatwg] [wf2] :read-write pseudoclass description issue
I see your point, to go for another route, maybe you'd just edit the source of the problem (the note), remove it and include a text similar to the remark about the disabled attribute. I.e: --- When an input element is disabled, it is immutable. When an input element is readonly, it is immutable. --- However, there is no readonly concept defined (maybe this will clarify more, but actually I think it's likely to complicate things even more). Hence, another suggestion could be: --- An input element to which the readonly attribute applies and has that attribute specified, is immutable. --- Cheers, Rikkert Koppes Ian Hickson wrote: On Wed, 11 Feb 2009, Rikkert Koppes wrote: At [1] I'd suggest changing the second sentence to When specified and applicable, the element is immutable. [1]: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#attr-input-readonly Yeah, I keep thinking of doing something like that. The reason I haven't yet is that I don't want to go down the route of people seeing that and thinking that that means that other things in that section might apply even when they don't (the intro to that section explicitly says that nothing there applies if the attributes aren't applicable).
Re: [whatwg] [wf2] :read-write pseudoclass description issue
On Wed, 11 Feb 2009, Rikkert Koppes wrote: I see your point, to go for another route, maybe you'd just edit the source of the problem (the note), remove it and include a text similar to the remark about the disabled attribute. I.e: --- When an input element is disabled, it is immutable. When an input element is readonly, it is immutable. --- However, there is no readonly concept defined (maybe this will clarify more, but actually I think it's likely to complicate things even more). Hence, another suggestion could be: --- An input element to which the readonly attribute applies and has that attribute specified, is immutable. The problem with those is that the requirement in question is already in the readonly section, along with some more requirements, and I don't want to split the requirements up to be all over the place... Instead I've annotated the note a little to make it slightly clearer why it's only sometimes. Does that help? -- Ian Hickson U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A/, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Re: [whatwg] [wf2] :read-write pseudoclass description issue
Anne van Kesteren wrote: Quoting Rikkert Koppes [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [...] A disabled control can still match this pseudo-class; the states are orthogonal. I believe the term orthogonal is incorrect here. :read-write is orthogonal to :disabled. That's correct. Ideally, this would be correct. Unfortunately, CSS3-UI defines :read-write in terms of user-alterability. Thus, while a control is disabled, it is unalterable, making :read-write and :disabled mutually exclusive.
[whatwg] [wf2] :read-write pseudoclass description issue
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-forms/current-work/#relation :read-only Matches form control elements that have the |readonly http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-forms/current-work/#readonly| attribute set, and to which the |readonly http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-forms/current-work/#readonly| attribute applies (thus radio buttons will never match this, regardless of the value of the attribute), as well as elements defined by this specification that are not form controls (namely |form|, |label|, |datalist http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-forms/current-work/#datalist|, |option|, |optgroup|, and |fieldset| elements). :read-write Matches form control elements that do not have the |readonly http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-forms/current-work/#readonly| attribute set (including |password http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-forms/current-work/#password| controls, although technically they should be called writeonly), or to which the attribute doesn't apply (such as radio buttons). A disabled control can still match this pseudo-class; the states are orthogonal. I believe the term orthogonal is incorrect here. Following (the rest of) the text, it occurs to me these pseusoclasses are opposite (mutually exclusive), while orthogonal means, they can both apply, independent of eachother. Proposal: exchange orthogonal with mutually exclusive, unless I completely misunderstood Regards, Rikkert Koppes
Re: [whatwg] [wf2] :read-write pseudoclass description issue
Quoting Rikkert Koppes [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [...] A disabled control can still match this pseudo-class; the states are orthogonal. I believe the term orthogonal is incorrect here. :read-write is orthogonal to :disabled. That's correct. -- Anne van Kesteren http://www.opera.com/ http://annevankesteren.nl/
Re: [whatwg] [wf2] :read-write pseudoclass description issue
Ah Let me rephrase the proposal: replace A disabled control can still match this pseudo-class; the states are orthogonal. with A disabled control can still match this pseudo-class; the disabled and read-write states are orthogonal. current description could fool more people :) Regards, Rikkert Koppes Anne van Kesteren schreef: Quoting Rikkert Koppes [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [...] A disabled control can still match this pseudo-class; the states are orthogonal. I believe the term orthogonal is incorrect here. :read-write is orthogonal to :disabled. That's correct.
