W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > February 2010

[whatwg] Customize HTML5 forms placeholder style

From: Dean Edwards <dean@edwards.name>
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 11:08:30 +0000
Message-ID: <180c22a91002220308q41a8a3am7b7aace834f586c4@mail.gmail.com>
On 22 February 2010 01:18, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky at mit.edu> wrote:
> On 2/21/10 7:11 PM, Dean Edwards wrote:
>> Why not just extend :empty to include <input> with no value?
> Because that's not backwards-compatible and in fact violates the current CSS
> spec?
>> It reads nicely:
>> input[required]:empty:after {
>> content: "This value is required";
>> color: red;
>> }
> 1) ?:after is not defined for replaced elements (which <input> is).
> Conforming CSS2.1 user agents do a variety of things here, ranging from not
> rendering such content at all to making it a sibling of the thing being
> styled instead of a child.

Fair enough. Ignore the :after example.

> 2) ?input[required]:empty is defined to match any input which has an
> attribute named "required" and no kids in the DOM. ?It does NOT match an
> input which has kids in the DOM.
> So today, input[required]:empty would match:
> ?<input required value="This is some value">
> in an HTML document and would not match the perfectly doable
> ?<input required="required" value="This is some value">
> ? ?And some random text, too
> ?</input>
> in an XHTML document.
> Unless this is in fact a proposal to completely redefine how :empty matching
> works in some backwards-incompatible way? ?Is there evidence that this won't
> break existing consumers?

Yes, I'm suggesting redefining how :empty works. For elements that
cannot have children it could mean having no content. e.g. An <input>
with no value or an <img> with no src.

It gets around the need for a new :placeholder pseudo-class:

input[placeholder]:empty {
  color: red;

There is a small chance that it could break some pages I guess. If
people are using *:empty than it may start matching some <input>

I always wanted a pseudo-class that could match <input> with no value.
Extending :empty is probably a bad idea but something like :no-value
would be useful.

Received on Monday, 22 February 2010 03:08:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:59:21 UTC