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

Re: :invalid

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2010 02:12:59 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTim8NZqwvMDm=Nvz8LY5RVBVB3--ZJ38jK3WZi+R@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Cc: Ryan Seddon <seddon.ryan@gmail.com>, Mounir Lamouri <mounir.lamouri@gmail.com>, www-style@w3.org
On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 1:18 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 23:28:44 +0200, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
>>
>> So to implement the current set of rules, we'd need the following
>> three pseudo classes:
>>
>> :dirty
>> Matches if user has modified value of control
>>
>> :has-been-invalid-and-unfocused
>> Matches if the control was ever unfocused and invalid at the same
>> time. Even if it later has become valid or focused
>>
>> :belongs-to-form-which-has-been-submitted
>> The user has attempted to submit the <form> which is the elements .form
>
> I think Simon's idea was to have just one pseudo-class. I.e. either modified
> and unfocused or in a form that has been submitted.

This doesn't really change much, if anything, of my arguments
previously in the thread though.

At that point why not also add "and is invalid" to the set of
requirements for matching this new pseduo class and make it actually
useful in and of itself?

/ Jonas
Received on Saturday, 25 September 2010 09:45:20 GMT

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