On Tue, 24 Jan 2012, L. David Baron wrote:
>
> http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/rendering.html#bidirectional-text
> specifies that UA style sheets should have the rule:
> [dir] { unicode-bidi: embed; }
>
> This implies that invalid values of the dir attribute should ca
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/rendering.html#bidirectional-text
specifies that UA style sheets should have the rule:
[dir] { unicode-bidi: embed; }
This implies that invalid values of the dir attribute should cause a
change in presentation. This seems wrong to me,
On Fri, 31 Dec 2010, Mounir Lamouri wrote:
> On 12/31/2010 02:13 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> > On Thu, 23 Sep 2010, Mounir Lamouri wrote:
> >>
> >> The current specification of :invalid is pretty simple: it matches all
> >> invalid elements which are candidate for constraint validation.
> >>
> >> Tod
On 12/31/2010 02:13 AM, ext Ian Hickson wrote:
It's not entirely clear to me what the intended UI is here. If the goal is
to only style form elements for (in)validity after they've lost focus or
after their form is submitted, it seems a couple of scripts on
would be the way to go:
...along
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 3:28 AM, Mounir Lamouri
wrote:
> On 12/31/2010 02:13 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> > On Thu, 23 Sep 2010, Mounir Lamouri wrote:
> >>
> >> The current specification of :invalid is pretty simple: it matches all
> >> invalid elements which are candidate for constraint validatio
On 12/31/2010 02:13 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Sep 2010, Mounir Lamouri wrote:
>>
>> The current specification of :invalid is pretty simple: it matches all
>> invalid elements which are candidate for constraint validation.
>>
>> Today, Gecko betas, Presto and Webkit support :invalid (I di
On Thu, 23 Sep 2010, Mounir Lamouri wrote:
>
> The current specification of :invalid is pretty simple: it matches all
> invalid elements which are candidate for constraint validation.
>
> Today, Gecko betas, Presto and Webkit support :invalid (I didn't check
> for IE). Unfortunately, :invalid i
On 9/24/10, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> On 9/23/10 6:12 PM, Mounir Lamouri wrote:
>> So, to improve the user experience while using web forms we would like
>> to fix that. However, we are wondering if :invalid (and :valid?)
>> specifications should be updated to take UX considerations or if a new
>> ps
Boris,
>Are there cases when pages would set invalid default values and want them
flagged as such in UI?
Yes, there are. Typically, in large organizations, there are folks who clean
up data. So they will be presented with data that's already entered by
someone else and their job is to clean up th
On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 02:50:42 +0200, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 9/23/10 6:12 PM, Mounir Lamouri wrote:
So, to improve the user experience while using web forms we would like
to fix that. However, we are wondering if :invalid (and :valid?)
specifications should be updated to take UX considerations
On 9/23/10 6:12 PM, Mounir Lamouri wrote:
So, to improve the user experience while using web forms we would like
to fix that. However, we are wondering if :invalid (and :valid?)
specifications should be updated to take UX considerations or if a new
pseudo-classe should be created. Does anyone has
Hi,
The current specification of :invalid is pretty simple: it matches all
invalid elements which are candidate for constraint validation [1].
Today, Gecko betas, Presto and Webkit support :invalid (I didn't check
for IE). Unfortunately, :invalid is far from being perfect and most
UI/UX guys woul
4.11.3. Executing SQL statements
[…]
1. If the syntax of sqlStatement is not valid (except for the use
of ? characters in the place of literals), or the statement uses
features that are not supported (e.g. due to security reasons), then
the the method must raise a SYNTAX_ERR exception and
13 matches
Mail list logo
