[whatwg] Form controls disabled IDL attribute and disabled state
ian at hixie.ch
Tue Dec 7 17:05:35 PST 2010
On Sun, 12 Sep 2010, Mounir Lamouri wrote:
> With HTML4 (at least before fieldset.disabled), form controls disabled
> IDL attribute was a simple way to set and get the disabled state because
> the disabled state and the disabled content attribute were exactly the
> same thing.
> Now, with fieldset.disabled, disabled IDL attribute has no longer the
> same meaning. It's now only reflecting the content attribute and not the
> disabled state. Nothing in the API let the author knows the disabled
> state so the only solution is to look at the entire parent chain until a
> fieldset with the disabled attribute is found .
> I can understand why when getting the disabled IDL attribute, this is
> not returning the state but the content attribute but I think there is a
> lack in the API and it might be nice for authors to have a simple way to
> know the state of the element . This could be done with the IDL
> attribute returning the state instead of the content attribute or
> another attribute returning the state.
> Feedbacks welcome :)
>  if the fieldset has no disabled attribute, it still might be a child
> of another fieldset which has a disabled attribute.
>  some tricks might be to use query selector and check if the element
> has the :disabled pseudo-class applying but that's only a workaround.
On Sat, 11 Sep 2010, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> First of all, I think setting the .disabled IDL has to map to setting
> the content attribute. I can't think of any other sane behavior (other
> than not having a setter at all, but that wouldn't be backwards compat)
> Second, it seems confusing to me to have the getter and setter "not
> match". I.e. to get vs. set entirely different things. This results in
> weird situations like
> foo.disabled = false;
> x = foo.disabled;
> // x is now true
> foo.disabled = !foo.disabled
> // This might be a no-op
> The result of these two statements is that I think that the spec for
> .disabled should not be changed.
> This leaves the question of if we should expose the computed disabled
> state thorough some other property. I don't really feel strongly about
> this, but as with any feature, we should ask what the use case is.
On Sat, 11 Sep 2010, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> Something like matchesSelector is an api on the element itself that does
> what you want; do we really need another api for it?
Boris and Jonas make strong arguments here, so I haven't changed the spec.
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
More information about the whatwg