- From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2010 08:59:44 -0700
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Ryan Seddon <seddon.ryan@gmail.com>, Mounir Lamouri <mounir.lamouri@gmail.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Sep 25, 2010, at 2:12 AM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 1:18 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 23:28:44 +0200, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
>>>
>>> So to implement the current set of rules, we'd need the following
>>> three pseudo classes:
>>>
>>> :dirty
>>> Matches if user has modified value of control
>>>
>>> :has-been-invalid-and-unfocused
>>> Matches if the control was ever unfocused and invalid at the same
>>> time. Even if it later has become valid or focused
>>>
>>> :belongs-to-form-which-has-been-submitted
>>> The user has attempted to submit the <form> which is the elements .form
>>
>> I think Simon's idea was to have just one pseudo-class. I.e. either modified
>> and unfocused or in a form that has been submitted.
>
> 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?
>
> / Jonas
If we had :dirty, wouldn't that take care of all needs (assuming that loosing focus makes a field dirty)? Then you could just have these:
input:dirty:valid {/* smiley face, green, etc. */}
input:dirty:invalid {/* caution sign, red, etc. */}
Received on Saturday, 25 September 2010 16:00:29 UTC