- From: Leigh L. Klotz, Jr. <Leigh.Klotz@Xerox.com>
- Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 11:36:57 -0700
- To: public-forms@w3.org
In [1] John and I took on the action to propose a :value-empty CSS pseudo-class. In reviewing the editor's draft, section G.1 "Pseudo Classes" [2], I've been reminded that CSS pseudo-classes are by convention tri-state, so for each pseudo-class there should its negation defined as well. All existing Pseudo-classes in G.1 are defined in pairs. The reason for the tri-state is that the middle is not excluded; for example, host language elements not bound to instance nodes would be neither empty nor non-empty. Therefore, I propose that we define :value-empty as a pair, and tentatively that we use :value-empty and :value-non-empty. (There is precedent for the use of hyphenated words; for example, :out-of-range and :read-write.) [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-forms/2008May/att-0054/2008-05-21.html#ACTION3 [2] http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/specs/XForms1.1/index-all.html#N89852 Leigh.
Received on Wednesday, 28 May 2008 18:37:41 UTC