- 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