- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 07 May 2010 19:34:57 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9683 Summary: tbody element in Polyglot documents Product: HTML WG Version: unspecified Platform: PC URL: http://dev.w3.org/html5/html-xhtml-author-guide/html-x html-authoring-guide.html#empty-elements OS/Version: Windows NT Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: HTML/XHTML Compatibility Authoring Guide (ed: Eliot Graff) AssignedTo: eliotgra@microsoft.com ReportedBy: eliotgra@microsoft.com QAContact: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org CC: mike@w3.org, public-html@w3.org, eliotgra@microsoft.com Issue: Should the spec treat tables without explicit tbody's as non-conforming, or treat style rules that produce different results based on the existence of tbody elements to be non-conforming? Current spec language: For a polyglot document, a table must explicitly have a tbody element surrounding groups of tr elements. HTML pasrsers insert the tbody element, but XML parsers do not, thus creating different DOMs. Correct: <table> <tbody> <tr>... Incorrect: <table> <tr>... Notes: Issue raised in mail sent by Sam Ruby[1]: There are two ways to address this: treat tables without explicit tbody's as non-conforming, or treat style rules that produce different results based on the existence of tbody elements to be non-conforming. As luck would have it, I had an opportunity to observe this exact discussion. DanC and PLH preferred it when tbody elements were included, TimBL preferred to not include tbody elements when they were not necessary. I didn't express an opinion in that venue, but I will say that while I don't currently routinely use tbody elements, I do think it would be better approach if this document were to suggest that they were required. [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Apr/0036.html -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Friday, 7 May 2010 19:34:58 UTC