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

Re: :invalid

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 13:17:59 +0200
To: "Jonas Sicking" <jonas@sicking.cc>
Cc: "Ryan Seddon" <seddon.ryan@gmail.com>, "Mounir Lamouri" <mounir.lamouri@gmail.com>, www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.vjqpn9vl64w2qv@anne-van-kesterens-macbook-pro.local>
On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 19:38:32 +0200, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 2:19 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>  
> wrote:
>> 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?

Right. I also want to keep :invalid the way it is.


> 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.

Until we figure that out it could be a proprietary extension I suppose.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Tuesday, 28 September 2010 11:18:34 GMT

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