[whatwg] [wf2] :read-write pseudoclass description issue

Ian Hickson ian at hixie.ch
Wed Feb 11 01:25:09 PST 2009

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]


> 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.

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

More information about the whatwg mailing list