Clarify that <fieldset> only uses the disabled attribute #16632
4 participants
A slight reorganization could work here, by breaking the paragraph into two parts: the attribute and the class, while also maintaining your cross link.
Only the
disabledattribute is required on checkboxes, radios, and fieldsets to style the elements appropriately. To have the<label>for the checkbox or radio also display a "not-allowed" cursor when the user hovers over the label, add the.disabledclass to your.radio,.radio-inline,.checkbox,.checkbox-inline.
Cool I'll make that change when I get home per your recommendation @zacechola and rebase it. Thanks for the feedback so we can ensure this is clear
I think all we need here is:
Disabled checkboxes and radios are supported, but to provide a "not-allowed" cursor on hover, you'll need to add the
.disabledclass to the parent.radio,.radio-inline,.checkbox, or.checkbox-inline.
It feels odd to mention <fieldset>s here at all. That's for the disabled fieldset docs section, not the checkboxes and radios. Sound about right?
I can understand that @mdo. The thought being why mention something is disabled if the section isn't about the component. Does that sound accurate for the reasoning behind nuking that component from the wording there? If so, that makes sense to me.
Pushed your recommendation @mdo — let me know if any other changes or adjustments are needed or desired.
mdo
and 1 other
commented on an outdated diff
| @@ -26,6 +26,7 @@ <h2 id="input-groups-basic">Basic example</h2> | ||
| <p>Place one add-on or button on either side of an input. You may also place one on both sides of an input.</p> | ||
| <p><strong class="text-danger">We do not support multiple add-ons on a single side.</strong></p> | ||
| <p><strong class="text-danger">We do not support multiple form-controls in a single input group.</strong></p> | ||
| + <p><strong class="text-danger"><code>input-group-addon</code> must be the last child within an input group.</strong></p> |
|
That's a fantastic question. No clue where this even came from as I haven't opened that file
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
|
removed that weird addition @mdo — not sure where it came from. Sorry about that
Guessing there was something wrong with the force push? The commit message is now inaccurate :).
My guess is I had a leftover patch-* branch locally that this overlapped with. That's fixed now though. Sorry about that. I can't wait for V4 so I can remove all my patch-* branches and clean up my local repo without affecting open PRs
Thanks for all the back and forth! Sorry for nit picking
Not nit picking at all. Legitimate mistakes on my part that should have been fixed before even sending it out to you guys. Gonna clean up my branches to only my open PR's so hopefully this won't happen again. Thanks for your patience
EDIT: Branches all cleaned up. Now only have patch-15 (this), patch-18 (CSS Source Maps), patch-16 (License FAQ), and affixoffsetTop0
Fixes #16630
Not sure the exact way to word it, but let me know if you'd like adjustments and I'll make those and rebase