- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 11:10:16 -0400
- To: Ryan Seddon <seddon.ryan@gmail.com>
- CC: Mounir Lamouri <mounir.lamouri@gmail.com>, www-style@w3.org
On 9/24/10 12:46 AM, Ryan Seddon wrote: > At the moment a field is invalid straight away if it has the required > attribute. > My idea was to have a third state that a required field can be > indeterminate. > The same state that radio and checkbox inputs have [2]. Basically a field > technically is neither valid nor invalid until it has a value to work with. Man, I hate divergent threads.... Since the cross-post was sent completely separately to both lists, the two partsof the discussion are missing each other. On whatwg, I suggested a psuedo-class that matches if the current value is the same as the default value as a possible way of addressing this problem. Note that this is not the same as testing for "empty value" unless the default is empty, though. -Boris
Received on Friday, 24 September 2010 15:47:26 UTC