W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2007

Re: Review of 3.15.1. The table element

From: Mihai Sucan <mihai.sucan@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 23:49:43 +0300
To: "Boris Zbarsky" <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
Cc: public-html <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.txhas5kbmcpsjgr0b0dp@athlon>

Hello Boris!

Le Wed, 22 Aug 2007 23:05:18 +0300, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> a  
écrit:

> Mihai Sucan wrote:
>> The *rowIndex* DOM attribute must, if the element has a parent table,  
>> tbody, thead, or tfoot element, return the index of the tr element in  
>> the parent element's rows collection (for tables, that's the rows  
>> collection; for table sections, that's the rows collection).
>
> This is a little confusing... The DOM2 HTML definition is:

Perhaps you are making a confusion. I have only quoted the paragraphs from  
the spec, adding emphasis with *asterisk* where there's an error. Please  
take a look into the spec and see.

Hixie made an error saying in a paragraph "rowIndex element". There's no  
"rowIndex" element, there's only a rowIndex DOM attribute.

In the next paragraph he *seems* to have mistaken sectionRowIndex with  
rowIndex (based on the definition).


>    This is in logical order and not in document order. The rowIndex does  
> take
>    into account sections (THEAD, TFOOT, or TBODY) within the table,  
> placing
>    THEAD rows first in the index, followed by TBODY rows, followed by  
> TFOOT rows.
>
> In other words, rowIndex is the index in the table's .rows.  That's not  
> what your text above says.

It's not my definition. Please take a look at the spec.


>> If there is no such parent element, then the attribute must return 0."
>
> Are we sure?  That makes it impossible to tell that case apart from the  
> case when this is in fact the first row.  Would -1 make more sense?

Yes, that's somewhat confusing. Returning -1 would be better.

I wanted to add a point about this issue, but I forgot.


-- 
http://www.robodesign.ro
Received on Wednesday, 22 August 2007 20:49:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:04 GMT