Viewing profile — everdimension

Yeah well I don't recommend your advice You're confusing utility CSS concepts with accidental tailwind quirks

They've been blurring a lot lately

Come on, it's about replacements. They're easier to express (meaning literally easier to type out) with the author's syntax Great project

Title sounds like a dream, but I don't really see it happening yet. I honestly think you have to be retarded to put a touchscreen into a car. But they don't seem to be making less …

While I mostly share the same opinion and tend to agree with your conclusion, strictly speaking your observations do not prove that the original doctors were wrong. One could argue…

I addressed this elsewhere in the comment section, but there's not much "react" going on in the article. I do think that JSX is very expressive and the concern I cover mostly invol…

totally And if they fix it, it'll be fixed for everyone

Thanks, that's quite interesting and insightful! Thank you for sharing The fact that something provided by the browser can fail accessibility requirements is definitely ironic. We'…

Yeah this is exactly what I'm writing about in the article :)

> This article ultimately supports this by showing us exactly how half-baked this particular browser feature happens to be. In a way, yes. I do think there's a lot to improve from …

I totally understand this. Having DOM elements as an entry to some API isn't the best thing. But firstly, I would consider what you're missing when you abandon native validation * …

That's great advice! I also dislike the "character rejection" mechanisms, even though many people love it and products often ask to implement it. To add to the possible solutions m…

That's weird! Have you tried submitting the forms in the examples? The custom messages are supposed to be shown in the native browser validation tooltips. The support for those is …

The HTML is created using JSX, that's true. But the validation that the browser performs is part of the HTML behavior.

The API I'm proposing would indeed bring much more benefit when used in a declarative way. That's the point I'm specifically trying to convey in the article. I don't think I unders…

Yeah, I am aware! Thank you for the concern :) I did address this in an adjacent comment, but I'll say again that I did contemplate over using JSX or not. Also yes, it may have bee…

It's definitely true that many developers would benefit a lot from learning more about the basic HTML and the web platform. But I refuse to support the notion that this is somehow …

Sorry to disappoint, I did hesitate over this. But JSX is honestly very nice to read and also I didn't want to leave the impression that opting in to native form validation somehow…

Yeah well I promise it does read nicely when there's formatting which HN comments do not allow :)

That's exactly the case where the "customValidity" attribute shines! I have nothing against regex and the "pattern" attribute is the way to go for many cases, but having this is an…

> Even in jsx its not required to add a boolean value Absolutely true! But I like to do it because I personally think it reads more nicely and is more explicit and that's what I do…

Couldn't have said it better!

Great answer, exactly! Client-side validation isn't meant to remove the need for the server-side checks

> there's an enormous amount of other validation scenarios they don't cover Can you provide examples of those? Genuinely interested as I'm on a quest of creating a list of recipes …

That's totally true! Invalid states shouldn't be shown sooner than necessary It's just that for the demos in the article it makes sense to show invalid states as soon as possible, …