On Oct 23, 2008, at 12:19 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
Ultimately the display of the hint is, and should be, up to the UA,
so that non-full-featured devices can display things in a maximally
helpful way to the user. Within the context of a standard browser
on an ordinary computer, though, the
Am Donnerstag, den 23.10.2008, 23:02 +0100 schrieb Eduard Pascual:
> Would having some sort of "custom-error-message" attribute hurt that
> much? (Of course, the name is just an example, and I wouldn't really
> suggest it). It would simply ignored by current UAs, and not really
> hard to implement
This are just my thoughts, however I feel they are worth sharing:
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 4:40 PM, Ian Hickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You can call setCustomValidity() to set a specific string.
Joao explicitly asked for a way to achieve this **without scripting
enabled**. I think it's quite o
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 12:45 PM, Andy Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Oct 23, 2008, at 5:31 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
>
> This use case is definitely something we want to consider, but I don't
>> think it's about required="". It's about an option in the being a
>> non-option (as it were).
On Oct 23, 2008, at 5:31 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
This use case is definitely something we want to consider, but I don't
think it's about required="". It's about an option in the
being a
non-option (as it were). by definition can't have nothing
selected. That's what it means.
The issue about
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 1:48 AM, Maciej Stachowiak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Oct 15, 2008, at 8:03 PM, Eric Carlson wrote:
>
>>
>> On Oct 15, 2008, at 3:52 PM, Chris Double wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 10:14 AM, Anne van Kesteren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> wrote:
That's not
On Wed, 4 Oct 2006, Joao Eiras wrote:
>
> Although WebForm2 provides automatic validation of form content from the
> UA side, the specification has a few gaps related to customizablility of
> notifications, by web authors, without scripting enabled.
>
> If the user fills a form in an improper w
On Oct 15, 2008, at 8:03 PM, Eric Carlson wrote:
On Oct 15, 2008, at 3:52 PM, Chris Double wrote:
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 10:14 AM, Anne van Kesteren
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
That's not the question. The question is whether the looping
attributes are
needed at all. It seems that there's
On Oct 14, 2008, at 5:40 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
There is no way to say "loop forever" right now primarily because
doing so
would mean complicating the syntax of the playcount attribute to be
not
just a number. You can work around it with script (just add
onended="currentTime=0" to the el
Many times I've set SELECT.selectedIndex to -1 to have the effect of an
invalid starter value; I think this is a case where the REQUIRED attribute
would make sense. If a SELECT has a REQUIRED attribute, and
SELECT.selectedIndex == -1, then the control would be considered invalid.
It would also seem
On Mon, 2 Oct 2006, Ric Hardacre wrote:
>
> [scriplets] need to check that they're running on a compatible scripting
> engine, just checking for the existence of document.getElementById is
> the simple way (If there are better ways then I'm always open to
> learning). But I'm presented with an i
On Mon, 2 Oct 2006, Simon Pieters wrote:
>
> The required="" attribute doesn't apply to s in the current
> draft of WF2. As an author I'd expect it to apply to .
>
> I've seen a case where a is used and the user is required to
> change its value, as in:
>
>
>Select one:
>Foo
>B
Google Chrome has SNI because it uses WinHTTP for HTTPS connections
and WinHTTP supports SNI.
Adam
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 5:33 AM, timeless <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 10:14 PM, Aaron Swartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> You're thinking of SNI:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia
On Mon, 2 Oct 2006, Arve Bersvendsen wrote:
>
> In chapter 8.2 of the WF2 draft,
> http://whatwg.org/specs/web-forms/current-work/#relation>
> additional CSS pseudo-classes are specified. Are file upload controls
> left out of the definition of :in-range and :out-of-range on purpose, or
> is it
On Wed, 6 Sep 2006, Alex Vincent wrote:
>
> "For disabled or readonly controls, the (required) attribute has no
> effect."
>
> What does this mean? The missingValue bit of validityState is either on
> or off. Do I need to change the required bit if we're disabled? Or
> should I leave it alone
The DOM work was fake, but if you insist, here you have some fake SAX work:
Sub PrintOption(value, selected, text)
Const tagName = "OPTION"
Dim attrs(3)
Attrs(0) = "value"
Attrs(1) = value
If value = selected Then Attrs(2) = "selected"
Respons
16 matches
Mail list logo
