- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 10:38:32 -0700
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Cc: Ryan Seddon <seddon.ryan@gmail.com>, Mounir Lamouri <mounir.lamouri@gmail.com>, www-style@w3.org
On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 2:19 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> wrote: > 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. It sounds like the difference between what you are proposing, and the :ui-invalid proposal that I'm making, is that your proposing a specified set of rules that :<x> or :<x>-invalid should match, rather than leaving it up to the UA. Is this correct? If so, it sounds good, but I wonder if it will really work in practice unless all UAs agrees to use the same rules for invalid markers and thus all would have use for the :<x>/:<x>-invalid selector. / Jonas
Received on Monday, 27 September 2010 17:46:21 UTC