- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2010 11:19:41 +0200
- To: "Jonas Sicking" <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Cc: "Ryan Seddon" <seddon.ryan@gmail.com>, "Mounir Lamouri" <mounir.lamouri@gmail.com>, www-style@w3.org
On Sat, 25 Sep 2010 11:12:59 +0200, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote: > This doesn't really change much, if anything, of my arguments > previously in the thread though. > > At that point why not also add "and is invalid" to the set of > requirements for matching this new pseduo class and make it actually > useful in and of itself? You previously stated that it would be up to the user agent to determine when the pseudo-class would match. I do not think that is a good idea. I would also like to keep :valid paired with :invalid. Whether we do :<x>:invalid or :<x>-invalid/:invalid-<x> I do not really care about. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Saturday, 25 September 2010 09:20:19 UTC