Re: [selectors4] :empty psuedo class and input fields

Thanks, Schalk.

You are true in that assumption. There is a use case where one would want
to visibly show which elements are not filled in differently from those
that are required. The naming of the :empty psuedo selector has a very good
semantic meaning for this and it makes sense for it to be used like this. I
can envision a lot of uneducated developers to make bad assumptions based
on how the spec is written. I'm pretty new at wearing specification reading
glasses, but imho the spec does at this spot say neither against or for
this functionality.

If you need it specified in code I've written a small test here.
http://lab.festiz.com/psuedo-empty/



Stefan Wallin
================================
+46 (0) 709-529 036 || stefan.w@festiz.com
http://www.stefan-wallin.se
http://twitter.com/Stefan_Wallin


On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 3:43 PM, Schalk Neethling <sneethling@mozilla.com>wrote:

> Mounir,
>
> I believe what Stefan wants is to style fields that are empty, but not
> necessarily required, different so input:required:invalid is not going to
> work in this situation.
>
> Regards,
> Schalk
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mounir Lamouri" <mounir@lamouri.fr>
> To: www-style@w3.org
> Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 4:37:19 PM
> Subject: Re: [selectors4] :empty psuedo class and input fields
>
> On 03/12/2012 11:03 AM, Stefan Wallin wrote:
> > This strikes a chord with me, I'd really like to see the possibility to
> > style input fields that do not fit to be classed as required but are
> > still empty to be styled differently. Today this has to be done with DOM
> > scripting, neither input[value=""] or input:empty works as I think it
> > should work.
>
> This use case can already be solved like this:
> input:required:invalid {
> }
>
> Assuming you are using the required attribute as specified in HTML.
>
> Regarding the general proposal. That might be useful assuming there are
> use cases different from the one above.
>
> --
> Mounir
>
>
>