[whatwg] Form validation against invisible controls

[TAMURA, Kent]

Oh, I'm sorry.  I have found a sentence about visibility in the draft.

http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/association-of-controls-and-forms.html#constraint-validation
> If one of the controls is not being  
> rendered<rendering.html#being-rendered>
  (e.g. it has the hidden <editing.html#the-hidden-attribute> attribute set)
then user agents may report a script error.

This sentence is about process against controls of which validation result
is invalid.
I think UA doesn't need to validate such controls.


The Chrome bug report is here:
http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=45640

2010/6/4 TAMURA, Kent <tkent at chromium.org>

> > An element is a "candidate for constraint validation" if
>> > 1. it is a validatable type,
>> >    e.g. true if <input type=number>, false if <input type=reset>
>> > 2. has no "disabled" attribute,
>> > 3. has no "readonly" attribute,
>> > 4. inside of a <form> element,
>> > 5. has non-empty "name" attribute, and
>> > 6. not inside of a <datalist> element.
>> >
>> > I hope ValidityState and the pseudo classes ignores 2-6.

>> The pseudo-classes do not ignore 2, 3, and 6. (4 and 5 are now removed.)


> I'd like to propose to add another condition:
>   7. it is visible (computed 'display' property of CSS isn't 'none' and no
> 'hidden' content attribute)

> I couldn't find exceptional rules for validating invisible controls in the
> current draft.
> Chrome 5 was released with a part of interactive validation, and we
> received a bug report about validation against invisible form controls.

> --
> TAMURA Kent
> Software Engineer, Google






-- 
TAMURA Kent
Software Engineer, Google



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20100604/e528a490/attachment-0002.htm>