You may have misunderstood my poorly worded post. There's already a way to
express an element being disabled in HTML, namely the disabled property.
There's also already a way to express a button, namely the button element.
Yet it appears I still have to apply both classes btn and disabled in HTML
to get a disabled button. Furthermore, it appears I cannot apply the style
of btn and disabled classes in LESS, it only works when the classes are
applied directly in the HMTL.
This seems overly pedantic, which is why I'm wondering if I'm missing
something obvious.
Thanks!
On Friday, April 13, 2012 6:29:44 PM UTC-5, Mike Craig wrote:
>
> less is compiled to css and you apply css to html...no reinvention
> required.
>
> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 7:00 PM, nilskp wrote:
>
>> I've just started looking at Bootstrap, but there's a couple of things I
>> don't get. It appears I have to apply specific Bootstrap classes to get any
>> functionality, and those classes cannot be applied through LESS. An example:
>>
>> On my trial page, I had a disabled button, simply this:
>>
>> <button disabled>Click me</button>
>>
>> To have this render, I naturally tried this:
>>
>> button {
>> .btn;
>> &:disabled {
>> .disabled;
>> }
>> }
>>
>> This does not work. It appears I MUST apply those classes manually,
>> describing to Bootstrap what is already obvious in the HTML
>>
>> <button class="btn disabled">Click me</button>
>>
>> Any reason for Bootstrap to reinvent HTML or am I missing some obvious
>> switch somewhere?
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>>
>
