[whatwg] [WebForms2] custom form validation notifications
ian at hixie.ch
Tue Nov 11 17:15:45 PST 2008
On Thu, 23 Oct 2008, Eduard Pascual wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 4:40 PM, Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote:
> > You can call setCustomValidity() to set a specific string.
> Joao explicitly asked for a way to achieve this **without scripting
> enabled**. I think it's quite obvious why setCustomValidity() doesn't
> solve that need.
Granted, but it's not clear how one could do custom validity checking
without script, and for the other cases there are declarative solutions
(min="" and max="" are self-documenting, for instance; and title="" can be
used for pattern=""'s documentation.)
> Would having some sort of "custom-error-message" attribute hurt that
> much? (Of course, the name is just an example, and I wouldn't really
> suggest it). It would simply ignored by current UAs, and not really hard
> to implement (actually, it'd be trivial compared to implementing
> reg.exp. parsing).
It's not clear to me what problem this would solve.
> >> If the UA has scripting disabled, trying to prevent the default
> >> action for an invalid event won't work. Too overcome this problem,
> >> there could be a new attribute which could be called
> >> 'notifyoninvalid="true|false"' with a default value of true, for each
> >> control, or for the entire form. If the value is false, then the UA
> >> wouldn't notify the user in case of invalidity. This could then be
> >> delegated to some CSS using :invalid;
> > If scripting is disabled, why would you not want the user notified?
> > That would be pretty bad UI. :-)
> That'd be really useful if validation can be delegated to server-side
> scripting when no client-side scripting is available.
You can do that today, just don't use the new constraint attributes.
> Anyway, I don't think such an attribute is needed: a page can be
> authored with a "catch-all" validation rule for the field, and then the
> are dissabled, the rule wouldn't be updated and would stay as the
I don't really follow.
> OTOH, I think Joao's idea was more like to relying on visual hints (ie:
> marking the field as red) on cases where an error message popup would be
> redundant and annoying. I think that could be more elegantly handled
> with an empty attribute value for an hipothetical "custom-error-message"
> attribute (which is not the same as an absent attribute).
I really don't follow this. Maybe some concrete examples showing the
problem with the current spec solutions would help.
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
More information about the whatwg