[whatwg] False orthogonal nature :read-only and :disabled in WF2

[Matthew Raymond]

Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> Quoting Matthew Raymond <mattraymond at earthlink.net>:
>>   Perhaps you can explain to me how you justify this.
> 
> As mentioned on this mailing list when that was discussed what is currently in
> the specification was done in agreement with the editor of the respective CSS
> specification... Opera should have this implemented correctly...

   Technically, Ian specified that the text under the heading
":read-only" had been "reviewed by the editor of the CSS3 UI spec
and given the all-clear". He never said anything about the sentence
appended to the :read-write paragraph. I suppose it's possible that the
appended sentence was added with the approval of of Tantek Çelik.

   However, it really doesn't matter what he approved with regards to
text in WF2. In the case of the :read-only text in WF2, you could argue
that Ian was simply deferring to Tantek's greater understanding of the
CSS3-UI specification, as the WF2 spec was clearly changed to bring it
in line with the CSS3-UI text. In the situation involving :disabled, the
CSS3-UI specification does NOT support the appended sentence regarding
orthogonal states. The claim that the states are orthogonal is at best
nothing more than a private agreement between two individuals.

   Looking back on this, though, it's entirely possible that the change
is in anticipation of changes to CSS3-UI and Selectors. Clearly, the
pseudo-classes in CSS3-UI should be part of the Selectors specification.
This would mean massive changes for both CSS3-UI and Selectors, and
those changes are probably being held up by the current focus on CSS
2.1. (Not that that's a bad thing. Microsoft is using the Last Call
status of CSS 2.1 as an excuse not to implement it.)

   Bottom line, though, is that Ian should be harmonizing WF2 with real
specifications that are accessible by the public, not private, modified
versions of specifications that haven't been approved by the CSS Working
Group. If this change is in anticipation of a W3C spec revision, he
should state as much.