Re: Intent to prototype and ship: :user-valid and :user-invalid pseudo-classes.
On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 9:49 PM fantasai wrote: > We wanted it to be flexible enough that UAs could experiment with behavior and > improve usability over time, so we locked down the one period in time that we > felt was not up for debate (between attempted submission and next interaction > with the invalid input) and left the rest open to interpretation. I played with this some more and I think that might be a tad too vague. E.g., if you cancel an invalid event Firefox will no longer show UI messages to the user about filling in a form control, but :-moz-ui-invalid still matches (see https://software.hixie.ch/utilities/js/live-dom-viewer/saved/8957 for a demo). And flexibility here is tough as web developers likely want these to be fully deterministic to be able to build consistent experiences. ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Intent to prototype and ship: :user-valid and :user-invalid pseudo-classes.
On 2/23/21 09:24, Anne van Kesteren wrote: On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 2:59 PM Emilio Cobos Álvarez wrote: Let me know if you have any objections about this change, but I think having a prefixed pseudo-class for this is not a great state of affairs. This seems reasonable, but I think we should define the processing model for them in the HTML Standard as well, to ensure everyone can align on when exactly these are supposed to match. The original spec text for :user-invalid was pretty flexible in terms of when it can match. My understanding is that that was kind of intentional (cc'ing fantasai who was part of those discussions). But yeah I tend to agree we probably want to define more precisely when these must match and maybe even when they may match. -- Emilio ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Intent to prototype and ship: :user-valid and :user-invalid pseudo-classes.
On 2/23/21 11:52, Xidorn Quan wrote: Please head up in CSS working group about this, and probably ask for a resolution on no objection for us to ship it, as this spec is still in draft. Hmm, is it? https://www.w3.org/TR/selectors-4/#user-pseudos has had :user-invalid for quite a while, and we and other engines ship a lot of stuff in selectors-4. (I just added spec text for :user-valid, but it was noted in the non-draft spec that there was a resolution to add it as well). Anyhow not particularly trying to avoid this, just trying to clarify the situation. A heads-up probably wouldn't hurt anyways, and per Anne's comments we might want some html spec text as well. -- Emilio ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Intent to prototype and ship: :user-valid and :user-invalid pseudo-classes.
On Tue, Feb 23, 2021, at 12:59 AM, Emilio Cobos Álvarez wrote: > Standard: https://drafts.csswg.org/selectors/#user-pseudos > > Other browsers: No signal from other vendors, though we've shipped this > functionality for quite a while and the CSS working group considers it > useful, see discussions: > > * https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012Aug/0749.html > * https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2015Sep/0111.html > > I'm hoping that unprefixing it in Gecko will serve as a bit of a nag to > other browsers. Please head up in CSS working group about this, and probably ask for a resolution on no objection for us to ship it, as this spec is still in draft. - Xidorn ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Intent to prototype and ship: :user-valid and :user-invalid pseudo-classes.
On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 2:59 PM Emilio Cobos Álvarez wrote: > Let me know if you have any objections about this change, but I think > having a prefixed pseudo-class for this is not a great state of affairs. This seems reasonable, but I think we should define the processing model for them in the HTML Standard as well, to ensure everyone can align on when exactly these are supposed to match. ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Intent to prototype and ship: :user-valid and :user-invalid pseudo-classes.
Hi, In bug 1694141 I plan to unprefix :-moz-ui-valid and :-moz-ui-invalid pseudo-classes. These are useful pseudo-classes to determine when to show feedback to the user about a form control being invalid. Standard: https://drafts.csswg.org/selectors/#user-pseudos Platform coverage: all Preference: None Devtools bug: N/A Other browsers: No signal from other vendors, though we've shipped this functionality for quite a while and the CSS working group considers it useful, see discussions: * https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012Aug/0749.html * https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2015Sep/0111.html I'm hoping that unprefixing it in Gecko will serve as a bit of a nag to other browsers. Chromium bug: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1156069 WebKit bug: https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=67 web-platform-tests: There's a test for :user-invalid in css/selectors. I plan to add a test for :user-valid. There's https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/issues/9346 on file for adding WPTs that test the user-interaction part of this. Let me know if you have any objections about this change, but I think having a prefixed pseudo-class for this is not a great state of affairs. -- Emilio ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
