W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > March 2012

Re: [selectors4] :empty psuedo class and input fields

From: Schalk Neethling <sneethling@mozilla.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 10:37:32 -0700 (PDT)
To: Stefan Wallin <Stefan.W@festiz.com>
Cc: Mounir Lamouri <mounir@lamouri.fr>, www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <a5df10fe-ded4-40be-8422-f912b1a565fd@sneethling-05169.local>
Stefan,

Remember, whether the input field has text inside it or not, checking for childNodes on the input element will always give you an empty array as the text is not a child of the element, hence you will find that your first and second input elements will have a dashed border and not one solid and one dashed, as you might be expecting. 

NOTE: This is true if you only specified border color for .toc input[value=""] and border style as well. For example change your CSS to this:

.toc input[value=""] {
    border-color: red;
}

Also, even after adding text to the second input element the border will remain red as CSS is not even based and will not be triggered based on a change to the input element. It is simply going to style all empty input elements a certain way when the document is rendered and that will remain that way unless you 
1) change the style rules at run time
2) remove the rule and apply a new one

So, unless there is concrete support in CSS for reacting to changes in DOM elements such as change events on input fields, you are going to have to combine this with a little DOM manipulation.

Kind Regards,
Schalk

----- Original Message -----
From: "Stefan Wallin" <Stefan.W@festiz.com>
To: "Schalk Neethling" <sneethling@mozilla.com>
Cc: "Mounir Lamouri" <mounir@lamouri.fr>, www-style@w3.org
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 5:18:45 PM
Subject: Re: [selectors4] :empty psuedo class and input fields

Thanks, Schalk. 


You are true in that assumption. There is a use case where one would want to visibly show which elements are not filled in differently from those that are required. The naming of the :empty psuedo selector has a very good semantic meaning for this and it makes sense for it to be used like this. I can envision a lot of uneducated developers to make bad assumptions based on how the spec is written. I'm pretty new at wearing specification reading glasses, but imho the spec does at this spot say neither against or for this functionality. 


If you need it specified in code I've written a small test here. 
http://lab.festiz.com/psuedo-empty/ 





Stefan Wallin 
================================ 
+46 (0) 709-529 036 || stefan.w@festiz.com 
http://www.stefan-wallin.se 
http://twitter.com/Stefan_Wallin 



On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 3:43 PM, Schalk Neethling < sneethling@mozilla.com > wrote: 


Mounir, 

I believe what Stefan wants is to style fields that are empty, but not necessarily required, different so input:required:invalid is not going to work in this situation. 

Regards, 
Schalk 



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mounir Lamouri" < mounir@lamouri.fr > 
To: www-style@w3.org 
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 4:37:19 PM 
Subject: Re: [selectors4] :empty psuedo class and input fields 

On 03/12/2012 11:03 AM, Stefan Wallin wrote: 
> This strikes a chord with me, I'd really like to see the possibility to 
> style input fields that do not fit to be classed as required but are 
> still empty to be styled differently. Today this has to be done with DOM 
> scripting, neither input[value=""] or input:empty works as I think it 
> should work. 

This use case can already be solved like this: 
input:required:invalid { 
} 

Assuming you are using the required attribute as specified in HTML. 

Regarding the general proposal. That might be useful assuming there are 
use cases different from the one above. 

-- 
Mounir 
Received on Monday, 12 March 2012 17:38:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 22 May 2012 03:48:51 GMT