- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 12:31:41 +0000 (UTC)
On Mon, 2 Oct 2006, Simon Pieters wrote: > > The required="" attribute doesn't apply to <select>s in the current > draft of WF2. As an author I'd expect it to apply to <select>. > > I've seen a case where a <select> is used and the user is required to > change its value, as in: > > <select name="test" required> > <option value="">Select one: > <option>Foo > <option>Bar > </select> > > Now this can be done with radio buttons instead, but why can't the above > be supported? That is, make required apply to <select>s and if the value > is empty then required is not satisfied. (Same for <select multiple>.) > > (I realise that radio buttons and checkboxes satisfy required even if > the value is empty.) On Wed, 4 Oct 2006, Robert wrote: > > Submitting an empty value may be wanted, and since a select by > definition is a list of predefined valid values, it would make little > sense to prevent the user from selecting some of them. However, I agree > with the use case of the invalid starter value so users must consciously > select a value they wanted instead of the default one. This use case is definitely something we want to consider, but I don't think it's about required="". It's about an option in the <select> being a non-option (as it were). <select> by definition can't have nothing selected. That's what it means. The issue about a placeholder value is listed as an open issue in the spec, and will probably be addressed at some future point. I hope this addresses your comments satisfactorily. Cheers, -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 23 October 2008 05:31:41 UTC