- From: Dean Edwards <dean@edwards.name>
- Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 16:58:49 +0000
On 22 February 2010 15:11, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky at mit.edu> wrote:
> On 2/22/10 6:08 AM, Dean Edwards wrote:
>> There is a small chance that it could break some pages I guess.
>
> So why is it worth it, then?
I was agreeing with you. That's why I suggested :no-value.
>> 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?).
>
Yes, I think it should be live. As soon as you delete the text then
the pseudo-class applies. It would be similar to :checked.
As Tab Atkins pointed out it makes styling placeholders doable (but
not as nice as a dedicated pseudo-class):
input[placeholder]:no-value:not(:focus) {
}
It would be nice to use with required too:
input[required]:no-value {
border-color: red;
}
It's a shame that we can't have generated content for <input> elements
because I'd love to be able to do this:
input[required]:no-value:after {
content: "*required";
vertical-align: super;
color: red;
}
But you can't have everything. ;)
-dean
Received on Monday, 22 February 2010 08:58:49 UTC