Re: :invalid

On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 9:17 PM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 19:38:32 +0200, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 2:19 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 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?
>>
>
> Right. I also want to keep :invalid the way it is.
>
>
>
>  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.
>>
>
> Until we figure that out it could be a proprietary extension I suppose.


So :invalid become ambiguous as it behaves not how I would assume it to.
Instead we have :<x>-invalid to work in the way I originally thought
:invalid should. Whats the use case for having :invalid then?

- Ryan