- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 10:11:05 -0500
On 2/22/10 6:08 AM, Dean Edwards wrote: > Yes, I'm suggesting redefining how :empty works. For elements that > cannot have children There is no such thing in XML. > it could mean having no content. e.g. An<input> with no value or an<img> with no src. So this would need to be defined on the document language level, not in CSS. Sounds to me like you actually want a new psuedo-class with about your description the matching of which CSS would defer to the document language. > There is a small chance that it could break some pages I guess. So why is it worth it, then? > 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. I'd be fine with :no-value, I think, though it could easily be misused due to unexpected situations when it happens (e.g. a text input that I'm typing in and delete all the text but am about to type more text is :no-value, right?). -Boris
Received on Monday, 22 February 2010 07:11:05 UTC