| 00:57 | <Domenic> | The link element's disabled IDL attribute reflects the content attribute of the same name, whereas the style's disabled IDL attribute has no such content attribute. What principles in general decide whether we should reflect or not? |
| 00:58 | <Domenic> | The inconsistency between link and style is unfortunate, but the whole disabled feature in general has never felt very well thought out to me. |
| 01:21 | <emilio> | Yeah HTMLLinkElement.disabled was a compat requirement (an IEism iirc?) |
| 01:22 | <emilio> | https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/3840 has a lot of that background |
| 01:22 | <emilio> | Firefox was consistent before ^ ftr |
| 13:40 | <Dominic Farolino> |
So "related to the DOM" means having a content attribute then? |
| 13:41 | <Dominic Farolino> | If someone introduces an IDL attribute, but also wants to trigger the underlying behavior without script, then they'd have to have it reflect a content attribute with the same name. Is that a good enough "justification" / reason for doing that. |
| 13:42 | <Dominic Farolino> | It seems like "wanting to do things that you can do with an IDL attribute, but without JS" is the big motivation for wanting to reflect an IDL attribute? |