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

Re: :invalid

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 11:12:37 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTi==dawghxEJHJhwNbNFgu=_wfRcy=3_erYs4oRH@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ryan Seddon <seddon.ryan@gmail.com>
Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Mounir Lamouri <mounir.lamouri@gmail.com>, www-style@w3.org
On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 5:13 PM, Ryan Seddon <seddon.ryan@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 7:12 PM, 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?
>
> Why not remove the invalid pseudo-class from matching against controls that
> are just required, since we already have the :required pseudo-class for
> that. That way for control types that require more than just having a value
> or a control with a pattern attribute would have the :invalid pseudo-class
> match when it is useful to a developer?

Even if we did that, that doesn't seem to be enough to build a
stylesheet that matches in the conditions detailed in [1]. Or am I
missing something?

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

/ Jonas
Received on Monday, 27 September 2010 18:13:45 GMT

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