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

Re: :invalid

From: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 14:55:58 -0400
Message-ID: <AANLkTin1EXkh9ydmRzQBZyA8ebU0g8t8s1ZD_g_5Cxry@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Cc: Ryan Seddon <seddon.ryan@gmail.com>, Mounir Lamouri <mounir.lamouri@gmail.com>, www-style@w3.org
On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 1:58 AM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
> While we could try to come up with some set of selectors which can be
> combined together to accomplish this set of rules, I think this has a
> couple of problems. First of all it is somewhat inflexible. If we want
> to change the above rules we might need to invent even more selectors.
> Second, it makes it more cumbersome for authors to override the
> default UA stylesheet since that stylesheet might be different in
> different UAs.

But the styling will be different as well in different UAs, right?
Mozilla currently adds a fuzzy red border, but others might change the
background color, add a little X icon, or any number of other things.
So even if we had a unified :invalid-ui selector, it wouldn't let you
override the UI of some generic unknown browser by itself -- you'd
still have to figure out what rules the browser has by default, so as
to specifically override them.

In most cases, in principle, we'd want all UAs' built-in stylesheets
to be identical, so authors can override them reliably.  Here it seems
like we're talking about UAs applying entirely different UI in ways
that are visible to authors.  Surely that's an intrinsic
interoperability problem no matter what we do.  (Not that I have any
better solution to propose.)
Received on Monday, 27 September 2010 18:56:51 GMT

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