On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 5:08 AM, Dean Edwards <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes, I'm suggesting redefining how :empty works. For elements that > cannot have children it could mean having no content. e.g. An <input> > with no value or an <img> with no src. > > It gets around the need for a new :placeholder pseudo-class: > > input[placeholder]:empty { > color: red; > }
To get it to act like implementations do, you have to use "input[placeholder]:empty:not(:focus)". That's pretty complex. ^_^ > There is a small chance that it could break some pages I guess. If > people are using *:empty than it may start matching some <input> > elements. > > I always wanted a pseudo-class that could match <input> with no value. > Extending :empty is probably a bad idea but something like :no-value > would be useful. I certainly see the value in such a thing. ~TJ
