[whatwg] I dont like "successful"
ian at hixie.ch
Wed Dec 8 17:12:53 PST 2004
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004, [ISO-8859-1] Olav Junker Kjær wrote:
> Validation is defined as happening only for successful controls (section
> 4.4). Because of that, unchecked checkboxes, radiobuttons, and file
> fields with no selected files will not be validated. This is bad, since
> "required" (and "min") constraints will not be enforced then.
Oops. Fixed. Checkboxes and radio buttons are now successful if they are
required (which means they'll get caught by validation).
> I don't like the property "successful", since it's likely to be
> confusing for authors ("what is the difference between valid and
> successful?"), and it is of limited use. It's really just a detail about
> how to encode the form data set, not something of interest to the page
I'd love to find a better name. The attribute is needed for ATs and
form.validate() (to enable sane extensions in future).
> Also, the WF2 "successful" property is slightly different that in HTML4,
> where it seem to be defined per value rather that per control. E.g. in
> HTML4 each selected option in a select multiple list are considered
> successful, while in WF2 "successful" is a property of the select
> element rather than the option elements.
> Maybe the spec could instead use the term "validatable controls". The
> validatable controls is TEXTAREA, SELECT and all INPUT-types except the
> buttons and the image type.
Buttons can be successful too (when they triggered submission).
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
More information about the whatwg