[whatwg] I dont like "successful"

Ian Hickson 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 
> author.

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 mailing list