Re: :invalid

On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 7:12 PM, 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?
>

Why not remove the invalid pseudo-class from matching against controls that
are just required, since we already have the :required pseudo-class for
that. That way for control types that require more than just having a value
or a control with a pattern attribute would have the :invalid pseudo-class
match when it is useful to a developer?