W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > March 2011

[Bug 12241] Should form="" always make the input unassociated?

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2011 14:12:22 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1PwbAc-0003WS-S5@jessica.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12241

--- Comment #3 from Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> 2011-03-07 14:12:22 UTC ---
Right.  I understand the use cases for having unassociated elements, though you
can always do that by pointing them to a nonexistent ID, right?

This came up in the context of a web compat issue in Gecko 2.0.  Some
somewhat-widely-distributed intranet app is using markup like this:

  <input type="hidden" name="x" value="y"</form>

(Note missing '>' on <input>).

In IE, this parses <input> as having an attribute named "form" with an empty
value, but IE doesn't support @form, so this has no effect.

In Gecko's old parser, an '>' is implied when we see the '<' for </form>, so
there is no problem.

But when using IE-compatible tokenization and supporting @form, the <input> in
question is not submitted (since it's no longer form-associated), breaking the
app.

For now we're treating this as an evangelism issue, but if this behavior is
just an accident, we'd really prefer to fix this on our side rather than trying
to evangelize an unknown set of companies...

-- 
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 Monday, 7 March 2011 14:12:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 March 2011 14:12:27 GMT