W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > September 2010

Re: :invalid

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 10:55:00 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTin7Oq+y9rf=6VnLXrjBF8A=A8X4EztfEd9WHSw1@mail.gmail.com>
To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
Cc: Ryan Seddon <seddon.ryan@gmail.com>, Mounir Lamouri <mounir.lamouri@gmail.com>, www-style@w3.org
On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 8:10 AM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote:
> On 9/24/10 12:46 AM, Ryan Seddon wrote:
>>
>> At the moment a field is invalid straight away if it has the required
>> attribute.
>> My idea was to have a third state that a required field can be
>> indeterminate.
>> The same state that radio and checkbox inputs have [2]. Basically a field
>> technically is neither valid nor invalid until it has a value to work
>> with.
>
> Man, I hate divergent threads....  Since the cross-post was sent completely
> separately to both lists, the two partsof the discussion are missing each
> other.
>
> On whatwg, I suggested a psuedo-class that matches if the current value is
> the same as the default value as a possible way of addressing this problem.
>  Note that this is not the same as testing for "empty value" unless the
> default is empty, though.

I don't see that this would enable us to get the behavior that I
mentioned[1] earlier in this thread?

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Sep/0722.html

/ Jonas
Received on Friday, 24 September 2010 18:20:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:31 GMT