Simon Pieters
Simon Pieters
Ah ok. I'm still not sure it makes sense to use that event... An 'error' event seems more appropriate. 'invalid' is something the *user* needs to fix in the form...
@whatwg/forms
`action=foo` is likely not web compatible, since that was the original name of `formaction` and it had to be changed because `action` broke websites.
I'm OK with the current names, but something like `command` and `commandtarget` (or `commandfor`) could work too.
How about a separate `customAction` IDL attribute intended for author-level actions, instead of naming convention in `action`?
On the event, so is has both `action` and `customAction`.
Hmm yeah, it'd need to be `invokecustomaction=""` also I guess. I'm not sure it's better than naming convention.
I think it would be great if it was possible to determine test coverage for specs using this feature. I'm not sure what is needed to make that possible, but...
You can also have statements of fact and definitions, which may not need any tests. But maybe it's possible to detect those (check for lack of RFC 2119 keywords, check...
`min()` goes in `sizes` not `srcset`, so I guess https://github.com/validator/validator/blob/main/src/nu/validator/datatype/SourceSizeList.java#L250 is the right place. Per https://github.com/validator/validator/blob/main/src/nu/validator/datatype/SourceSizeList.java#L98 it looks like it should be supported already? Just `sizes="min(50px)"` validates but `sizes="min(50px, 20px)"`...