[whatwg] [WF2] Readonly and default pseudoclass matching

[Ian Hickson]

On Sun, 31 Jul 2005, Matthew Raymond wrote:
> >>
> >>Ian has sadly chosen to change the text to this:
> >>| Matches form control elements that have the readonly attribute set,
> >>| and to which the 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, option, optgroup, and fieldset
> >>| elements).
> >>
> >>   First of all, he shouldn't mention "elements...that are not form 
> >>controls" in the first place, because he's saying that they can be 
> >>specifically selected by :read-only when the whole point should have 
> >>been to eliminate anything that might conflict with CSS3-UI, and 
> >>obviously if we change CSS3-UI to use the XForms definition of 
> >>:read-only, this will conflict.
> > 
> > Note that the text above was reviewed by the editor of the CSS3 UI spec 
> > and given the all-clear.
> 
> Of course he gave it the all clear. He's the one who wrote the disputed 
> portion of the spec in the first place.

Which disupted section of which spec? If there is a dispute about a CSS 
spec, this is the wrong forum. Please move such discussions to www-style, 
where the discussions have a greater-than-zero chance of actually causing 
the CSS specs to change. :-)

If the disputed section is the one I wrote (i.e. the one quoted above) 
then no, he didn't; I wrote it.

In the interests of focussing on the things that are relevant to WHATWG, 
I've skipped the parts of your e-mail that discussed only the CSS specs.
Please reraise those issues in www-style if you want a reply. (And sorry 
for not replying here, but getting WF2 sorted out is my priority here.)

(But just a quick comment -- whether you call something :editable or 
:read-write or :foobar or :xyzzy is irrelevant; the name is meaingless. 
It's the definition that matters.)


> > CSS3 UI is pretty clear about the fact that pretty much all elements 
> > match either :read-only or :read-write, for example is a document is 
> > loaded in an editor (say, Amaya), all elements become :read-write.
> 
>    And if it's changed later, say in a CSS3-UI Revision 1, you'll have 
> to change the language in WF2 to follow suit, because WF2 deliberately 
> reiterates parts of the current CSS3-UI.

Yes. Since I'm a member of the CSSWG, that won't be a problem.


> > I recommend sending your comments to www-style. As far as WHATWG goes, 
> > we have to take CSS3 UI as gospel and work from there.
> 
>    Even so, you could simply refer generally to CSS specifications 
> without restating their content. By restating content, you make the spec 
> potentially incompatible with future revisions of the CSS3-UI spec.

The problem is that CSS3 UI is not clear enough to lead to interoperable 
specifications in the context of WF2. Thus, it is my responsibility, as 
editor of WF2, to clarify how the specs interact. As editor, I also take 
on the responsibility of tracking future revisions of CSS3UI to ensure 
they do not break us, and that WF2 is updated to track CSS3UI changes. 
(The same applies to all WF2's dependencies.)



> In a scenario with script, when would you disable the <input readonly> 
> element specifically and in markup rather than disabling a parent 
> <fieldset>?

There might not be a parent <fieldset>. In any case, what's the 
difference?

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'