Closed
Bug 600155
Opened 15 years ago
Closed 15 years ago
Let the authors override validation message with x-moz-errormessage attribute
Categories
(Core :: DOM: Core & HTML, defect)
Core
DOM: Core & HTML
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
FIXED
mozilla2.0b7
People
(Reporter: mounir, Assigned: mounir)
References
Details
(Keywords: dev-doc-complete, html5)
Attachments
(1 file, 1 obsolete file)
|
6.58 KB,
patch
|
sicking
:
review+
jst
:
approval2.0+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
The idea is simple, if an element is invalid and mozErrorMessage is set, the error message will be overwritten by the string in mozErrorMessage. In some way, it lets the authors setting an error message without making the element suffering from a custom validity.
| Assignee | ||
Comment 1•15 years ago
|
||
Jonas, should we add an IDL attribute for that? That might be more convenient but that might be annoying for authors if they use it and then we remove it, right?
I would say we should not add an IDL method. Seems better to add minimum amount of code to support an experimental feature.
| Assignee | ||
Updated•15 years ago
|
| Assignee | ||
Updated•15 years ago
|
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
| Assignee | ||
Updated•15 years ago
|
Summary: Let the authors override validation message with mozErrorMessage attribute → Let the authors override validation message with x-moz-errormessage attribute
| Assignee | ||
Comment 3•15 years ago
|
||
Assignee: nobody → mounir.lamouri
Attachment #479948 -
Flags: review?(jonas)
| Assignee | ||
Comment 4•15 years ago
|
||
Attachment #479948 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #479950 -
Flags: review?(jonas)
Attachment #479948 -
Flags: review?(jonas)
Comment 5•15 years ago
|
||
Why such a very unusual naming for the attribute? Why x- prefix?
It's what HTML5 calls for these days. See towards the end of
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9590
Attachment #479950 -
Flags: review?(jonas) → review+
| Assignee | ||
Comment 7•15 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #5)
> Why such a very unusual naming for the attribute? Why x- prefix?
I agree, that's horrible !
Comment 8•15 years ago
|
||
x-vendor is terrible. But I'll argue in the W3C bug.
| Assignee | ||
Comment 9•15 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #8)
> x-vendor is terrible. But I'll argue in the W3C bug.
If you do, please, CC me :)
| Assignee | ||
Updated•15 years ago
|
Attachment #479950 -
Flags: approval2.0?
Updated•15 years ago
|
Attachment #479950 -
Flags: approval2.0? → approval2.0+
Updated•15 years ago
|
Keywords: dev-doc-needed
| Assignee | ||
Comment 10•15 years ago
|
||
Pushed:
http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/188670e40942
But marking Target Milestone: beta7 because I realized this has been pushed accidentally with a big merge after a backout. I've no idea why :-/
I backed it out and pushed it again to have correct log.
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 15 years ago
Flags: in-testsuite+
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla2.0b7
Comment 11•15 years ago
|
||
Documented:
https://developer.mozilla.org/en/HTML/Element/Input
And linked from Fx4 for developers and https://developer.mozilla.org/en/HTML/HTML5/Forms_in_HTML5
Keywords: dev-doc-needed → dev-doc-complete
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•