- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 02 May 2011 10:09:00 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12581 Summary: In the section about the time element it is stated that it does not need the datetime attribute set if its textContent is a valid date or time string. So the selector here in the rendering section, time[datetime], might mislead implementors to not apply a Product: HTML WG Version: unspecified Platform: Other URL: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#the -time-element-0 OS/Version: other Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: HTML5 spec (editor: Ian Hickson) AssignedTo: ian@hixie.ch ReportedBy: contributor@whatwg.org QAContact: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org CC: mike@w3.org, public-html-wg-issue-tracking@w3.org, public-html@w3.org Specification: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/rendering.html Section: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#the-time-element-0 Comment: In the section about the time element it is stated that it does not need the datetime attribute set if its textContent is a valid date or time string. So the selector here in the rendering section, time[datetime], might mislead implementors to not apply a time binding if the attribute is missing but the textContent is a valid date or time string. Posted from: 78.52.70.139 User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10_6_7; de-de) AppleWebKit/533.21.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.5 Safari/533.21.1 -- 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, 2 May 2011 10:09:02 UTC