- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:44:39 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7978 --- Comment #21 from Ian 'Hixie' Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> 2009-10-27 00:44:38 --- (In reply to comment #8) > Because if you apply that in XHTML, then the following perfectly reasonable > (from a parsing point of view; it's clearly invalid) XHTML document won't work > right: > > <body> > <table> > <form> > <tr><td>Some text</td></tr> > </form> > </table> > </body> This wouldn't work right anyway. You'd end up with two nested CSS tables. So I don't really see that it matters if we make this display:none or display:block. The spec change doesn't require the 'display:none' on table>form to be !important, unlike the Gecko implementation. Is that a problem? I don't mind changing any of this, but I'd really like to avoid quirks or XHTML mode differences if at all possible. Please reopen the bug if there's something to change. -- 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 Tuesday, 27 October 2009 00:44:43 UTC