- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Wed, 1 May 2013 21:45:31 +0200
- To: whatwg@lists.whatwg.org
Anne van Kesteren on Wed May 1 09:46:50 PDT 2013: > On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 5:39 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: >> Interesting. Certainly at the point when Gecko implemented the current >> behavior I recall it matching the spec… Thanks so much, Darin, Boris and Anne. > Changed in: http://html5.org/r/4841 > > Context: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-whatwg-archive/2010Mar/thread.html#msg67 FOLLOW-UP on src="<empty>": If @src is empty (and there is no base url) a 'subsequent access' via a contextual menu, such as 'Show/Open image' or 'Save/Download image' has no effect in Firefox20, Opera12, IE10. Whereas Safari/Chrome do provide a contextual menu item for those features. (And the UA results are the same - except with regard to Firefox, also if there *is* a base URL.) Webkit/Blink seems inconsistent/buggy, right? A special detail is the last paragraph of section '2.5.3 Dynamic changes to base URLS'[1] which implies that a change to the base URL should (even when @src is empty, one must assume, not?) affect the @src URL so that a 'subsequent access' via context menu could be used to e.g. open the image resource set by the base URL. Is it meaningful? By now, only Webkit/Blink let base URL affect the subsequent access. (And Firefox, but that's because of the bug.) FOLLOW-UP w.r.t. cite="<empty>" and longdesc="<empty>": What if @cite or @longdesc are empty? Personally, I think it would be simplest to handle at least @longesc - but probably @cite too - the same way that @src is handled. The relevance to subsequent access to empty @src is that @longdesc and @cite tend, from users’ point of view, to be subsequently accessed (e.g. via context menu). Currently, the HTML spec doesn't even require the @cite attribute to be a *non-empty* URL - thus it can be empty.[2] By contrast, the @longdesc cannot be empty.[3] What is the use case for an empty @cite attribute? For @longdesc, the ‘trend’ of implementations is to ignore the longdesc when it is the empty string.[4] And basically, my motivation for these letters is to make sure that the longdesc spec can safely say - without conflicting with anything else - that implementations should ignore empty longdesc attributes.[5] [1] http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/urls.html#dynamic-changes-to-base-urls [2] http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/grouping-content.html#attr-blockquote-cite [3] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-proposals/raw-file/default/longdesc1/longdesc.html#attributes [4] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21778#c2 [5] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21778#c4 -- leif halvard silli
Received on Wednesday, 1 May 2013 19:45:59 UTC