W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > September 2010

Re: :invalid

From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 11:09:49 -0700
Message-Id: <ABFB2C27-4731-43BB-911A-9A3AC6990FC7@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>
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
On Sep 27, 2010, at 10:47 AM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:

> 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]?

My thought was that :dirty would match whenever an element was focused and then unfocused, or had it's value changed when not focused (such as through auto-completion), or had it's form begin to be submitted. 
Received on Monday, 27 September 2010 18:18:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:49:48 UTC