- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 10:55:00 -0700
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
- Cc: Ryan Seddon <seddon.ryan@gmail.com>, Mounir Lamouri <mounir.lamouri@gmail.com>, www-style@w3.org
On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 8:10 AM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote: > 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. I don't see that this would enable us to get the behavior that I mentioned[1] earlier in this thread? [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Sep/0722.html / Jonas
Received on Friday, 24 September 2010 18:20:36 UTC