- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 01:47:35 +0000 (UTC)
On Wed, 20 Oct 2010, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > > Consider the following testcase (XHTML, but an equivalent DOM can be > constructed in HTML, of course). > > <!DOCTYPE html> > <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> > <body> > aaa > <optgroup> > bbb > </optgroup> > ccc > <option> > ddd > </option> > eee > </body> > </html> > > I observe the following behaviors: > > 1) Gecko makes optgroup and option blocks (and applies some > bold/italic/font-size styles to the optgroup, at least). > 2) Presto renders the text in the <optgroup> (which it treats as an > inline) but doesn't render the <option> at all. > 3) Webkit renders neither the <optgroup> nor the <option> > 4) Trident (IE8/9) renders like Gecko as far as styling the optgroup, > except it makes the optgroup and option inlines, not blocks. > > I have a hard time believing any of this matters for interop, but.... I think the IE behaviour is closest to what the spec says, technically, though that's mostly because the spec doesn't say much of anything about <option> and <optgroup> rendering and so they just fall back to their defaults. (The spec doesn't even suggest different default font styles, leaving that up to the default <select> binding.) We can change the spec here if there's a reason to do so, but as you say, I'd be surprised if there were interop needs here, so the simplest behaviour (nothing special) seems the best. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 4 January 2011 17:47:35 UTC