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

[whatwg] select element should have a required attribute

From: Diego Perini <diego.perini@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 17:14:27 +0200
Message-ID: <AANLkTikxFfWnXS7ChT4u4gWA8d59aqT3A1H6ckJyTMdp@mail.gmail.com>
Agree on the "required" attribute utility also for the "select" element.
Actually I thought it was already so, seems not !

Was there a reason to add the "required" attribute to other controls and not
to "select" ?

+1

Diego


On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 4:19 PM, Mounir Lamouri <mounir.lamouri at gmail.com>wrote:

> On 06/18/2010 01:04 PM, Ashley Sheridan wrote:
> > On Fri, 2010-06-18 at 11:35 +0200, Mounir Lamouri wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I'm wondering why select element do not have a required attribute. It
> >> seems to be perfectly suitable. With the required attribute, select
> >> element would be able to suffer from being missing and the :required
> >> pseudo-class could apply.
> >>
> >> Is there a reason why the select element has no required attribute or
> >> it's only an omission?
> >>
> >> Related bug:
> >> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9625
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> --
> >> Mounir
> >
> > Required as in it should always have a value sent? If so, then it always
> > does. The default value for a select element is not an empty string as
> > an <option> is always there (unless someone has been stupid enough to
> > create an empty select list.)
> >
> > As such, some sort of value will always be sent.
>
> I'm getting back to this subject because the answers I got were not
> really convincing. Nor the answers from the previous thread [1].
>
> I see three reasons to have @required for <select>:
>
> 1. A typical use case of <select> is to have <option value=''>Choose an
> option</option> as a default value. Having @required would prevent
> authors to write any js check when they are using <select> like that.
> 2. For <select multiple>, it is possible to not select any option. The
> required attribute can be really helpful here too.
> 3. Having @required for <select> will be consistent and semantically
> better. As I see it, with HTML5 Forms, I should be able to do
> :not(:required) { display: none; } and still be able to submit the form
> (I should not hide submit controls actually ;)). So, even for the simple
> <select>'s with a non-null default, knowing it is required would be good
> for everyone.
>
> Feedbacks are welcome :)
>
> [1]
>
> http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2006-October/007331.html
>
> Thanks,
> --
> Mounir
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20100722/a53b4234/attachment.htm>
Received on Thursday, 22 July 2010 08:14:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:59:25 UTC