- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2007 22:19:48 -0700
- To: scott lewis <sfl@scotfl.ca>
- Cc: Thomas Broyer <t.broyer@gmail.com>, HTML Working Group <public-html@w3.org>
On Jul 8, 2007, at 6:35 PM, scott lewis wrote: > > On 8 Jul 2007, at 1523, Thomas Broyer wrote: > >> 2007/7/7, scott lewis: >>> >>> On 6 Jul 2007, at 1644, Robert Burns wrote: >>> > >>> > I'm not sure if Thomas is confused. >> >> I wasn't. >> >>> > There is certainly an issue that our recommendations should deal >>> with. >>> > In other words when serializing as XML, should a translating UA >>> include >>> > explicit <tbody> elements when serializing to XMl? There may >>> problems >>> > with doing so, but there will also be problems with not doing >>> so. For >>> > example, a user may wonder why the CSS stopped working simply from >>> > saving to a different serialization. >>> >>> How would the CSS break? CSS rules are applied against the DOM and >>> the <tbody> will always be represented in the DOM. (If the element >>> is >>> not present in a serialized document it is inserted into the DOM by >>> the UA.) >> >> No it won't, in the case of application/xhtml+xml. > > Some UAs do even today. In quick testing, serving an XHTML1 Strict > document[1] with an application/xhtml+xml doctype resulted in: > - Safari 3 beta inserting the <tbody> We fixed this in current WebKit sources and will not insert a <tbody>. However, the table will still render as expected because per CSS we will create an anonymous table body on the rendering side only, no element. So some future release will match the Opera 9.21 behavior, which I believe is correct. > > - Opera 9.21 not inserting the <tbody> > - Firefox 2.0.0.4 and 1.5.0.9 refusing to render the document > - IE 7.0.5730.11 rendering the document as if the <tbody> were > inserted (I didn't check the DOM for it's presence) I suspect testing error here, since IE would refuse to render application/xhtml+xml. Regards, Maciej
Received on Monday, 9 July 2007 05:19:57 UTC