- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 11:12:37 -0700
- To: Ryan Seddon <seddon.ryan@gmail.com>
- Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Mounir Lamouri <mounir.lamouri@gmail.com>, www-style@w3.org
On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 5:13 PM, Ryan Seddon <seddon.ryan@gmail.com> wrote: > 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? Even if we did that, that doesn't seem to be enough to build a stylesheet that matches in the conditions detailed in [1]. Or am I missing something? [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Sep/0722.html / Jonas
Received on Monday, 27 September 2010 18:13:45 UTC