Re: :invalid

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