- From: Peter Kasting <pkasting@google.com>
- Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2010 17:09:29 -0700
On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 3:48 PM, Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c at gmail.com<Simetrical%2Bw3c at gmail.com> > wrote: > On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 12:11 PM, TAMURA, Kent <tkent at chromium.org> wrote: > > Oh, I'm sorry. I have found a sentence about visibility in the draft. > > > http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/association-of-controls-and-forms.html#constraint-validation > >> If one of the controls is not being rendered (e.g. it has > >> the hidden attribute set) then user agents may report a script error. > > > > The Chrome bug report is > > here: http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=45640 > > I think this isn't a feasible strategy to pursue. You'd have to > carefully define what's "not being rendered", and it will violate > layering massively. CSS should not be able to override constraints > set in HTML. The latter are part of the semantics of the form, and > the former is supposed to only control presentation. > > If the user can't actually change the form to match requirements, > that's a bug in the page. The browser should not try to guess what > the page really meant using some inevitably complicated heuristic. It > should respect what the page says, and make it not work. If the > browser has a UI for form validation errors, it can use that to tell > the user what the problem is in terms that the page author can > understand, so the user can report it and the page can be fixed. I posted this on the Chromium bug, but I take the sentence Kent quotes to affect only the UI shown on a validation failure, not the actual results of validation. That is, if a control fails validation and has the "hidden" attribute, validation still fails, but the UA may display a message indicating the page has an error in addition to/instead of the normal validation failure message. I agree that it would be a mistake to exclude "invisible" elements from validation, as that would be a rathole (and seems conceptually wrong to me). PK -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20100603/851b3dc1/attachment.htm>
Received on Thursday, 3 June 2010 17:09:29 UTC