[whatwg] Form validation against invisible controls

Jonas Sicking jonas at sicking.cc
Mon Jun 14 16:05:14 PDT 2010

On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 3:24 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs at apple.com> wrote:
> On Jun 14, 2010, at 3:40 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 Jun 2010, Ola P. Kleiven wrote:
>>> The following sites have workarounds in Opera's browser.js to allow form
>>> submit:
>>> airgreenland.com (using required on hidden elements)
>>> barnesandnoble.com (using required on visible elements that are supposed to be
>>> empty on submit...)
>>> bookryanair.com (using required=false - this usage has also been found in JS
>>> libraries)
>>> ingdirect.com.au (using required on a visible field, but then emptying the
>>> field with JS before submit)
>>> usairways.com (using required on hidden elements)
>>> Most of these have been using it for several years and have not responded to
>>> change requests from our side.
>>> We have also seen a couple of instances of wrong input types (number
>>> where text expected etc.), but the usage of "required" is the biggest
>>> problem in my experience.
>> Incorrect use of "required" in HTML4-era documents also seems to be the
>> common problem Chrome ran into -- at the risk of starting a bikeshed
>> discussion, does anyone have any good suggestions for alternative names?
> A few suggestions:
> required-field
> value-required

This is a pretty short list of sites. I'd really like to avoid
renaming the attribute at this point as I strongly suspect that we can
get these sites fixed within a few months.

It might have been very hard to get these sites to listen when only
one browser broke. However in a very short order 4 out of the top 5
browsers will implement the "required" attribute, which should be very
strong incentive.

I've contacted our evangelism team which in the passed have been
pretty successful at getting sites to change, so I'm pretty hopeful we
can do that here too.

/ Jonas

More information about the whatwg mailing list