- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 10:47:19 -0700
- To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- 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 Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 8:59 AM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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. */}
When would the :dirty pseduo-class match? Would the above two
selectors be enough to implement the UI requirements laid out in [1]?
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Sep/0722.html
/ Jonas
Received on Monday, 27 September 2010 17:54:00 UTC