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

Re: :invalid

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 10:38:32 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTimZoUYi8CzNcSxxAzDf7iTLMct7uwmEk20uhcYH@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 2:19 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Sep 2010 11:12:59 +0200, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
>>
>> 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?
>
> You previously stated that it would be up to the user agent to determine
> when the pseudo-class would match. I do not think that is a good idea. I
> would also like to keep :valid paired with :invalid. Whether we do
> :<x>:invalid or :<x>-invalid/:invalid-<x> I do not really care about.

It sounds like the difference between what you are proposing, and the
:ui-invalid proposal that I'm making, is that your proposing a
specified set of rules that :<x> or :<x>-invalid should match, rather
than leaving it up to the UA. Is this correct?

If so, it sounds good, but I wonder if it will really work in practice
unless all UAs agrees to use the same rules for invalid markers and
thus all would have use for the :<x>/:<x>-invalid selector.

/ Jonas
Received on Monday, 27 September 2010 17:46:21 GMT

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