On Mar 30, 2006, at 6:15 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
Single select:
Is it conforming for an option to be both selected and disabled? (I
think it shouldn't be conforming.)
Agreed. If you're not permitted to choose, the whole <select> should be
disabled.
And analogously: Is is conforming for a radio button to be both
checked and disabled if the whole set is not disabled? (This one is
harder to check, but anyway...)
I think it shouldn't be, for the same reason.
Is it conforming to have no option that is marked selected? (I think
allowing this is safe.)
I'm pretty sure we've been through this before -- I think it shouldn't
be, ratemy*.com thinks it should be, and there are more of those sites
than there are of me. :-) (Why they don't just use a set of numbered
<input type="submit">s, which would work even with JavaScript off, I
have no idea.)
Select multiple:
Is it conforming for an option to be both selected and disabled? How
do native widgets handle this?
...
I don't see why not, since it wouldn't be adding any new elements or
attributes, though it wouldn't be very commonly used.
Breakfast:
__________________________________________
|[/] Egg |A|
|[/] Bacon |:|
|[ ] Sausage |:|
|[ ] Lobster Thermidor a Crevette |:|
|: : Baked beans (currently unavailable) |:|
|[ ] Tomato |:|
|:/: Spam |V|
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
To distinguish between selected disabled and unselected disabled
options, browsers would need to start including a checkbox for each
item in a <select multiple>. But then they should have been doing that
all along, both to distinguish between <select multiple> and <select
size>, and to save people from having to know Ctrl+click/Command+click.
--
Matthew Paul Thomas
http://mpt.net.nz/
