- From: Rick Rivello <richard.rivello@nist.gov>
- Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 08:06:27 -0500
- To: "David Faure" <david@mandrakesoft.com>, <www-dom-ts@w3.org>
- Cc: "Lars Knoll" <knoll@kde.org>
----- Original Message ----- From: "David Faure" <david@mandrakesoft.com> To: <www-dom-ts@w3.org> Cc: "Lars Knoll" <knoll@kde.org> Sent: Monday, December 16, 2002 6:22 PM Subject: rowIndex inconsistencies in the testsuite > On Tuesday 26 November 2002 23:51, Philippe Le Hegaret wrote: > > On Tue, 2002-11-26 at 16:29, David Faure wrote: > > > Most of the failing table tests are due to the section reordering issue. I sent > > > a mail to this list about it, but it remained unanswered. The subject line was > > > "Order of table sections". I would be glad if this could trigger some discussion :) > > > > Looking at [1], it appeared that this issue was closed at: > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-dom/2002OctDec/0044.html > > It seemed like Mozilla and IE are following the same behavior here. > > I'm now hitting a problem with rowIndex, which is answered in the above link. > If I understand correctly, the new, and correct behaviour, is that rowIndex > (quoting the DOM spec) > "is in logical order and not in document order. The rowIndex does take into > account sections (THEAD, TFOOT, or TBODY) within the table, placing THEAD > rows first in the index, followed by TBODY rows, followed by TFOOT rows." > > If that's the case, then I believe the tests HTMLCollection07 and > HTMLCollection08 have a bug, they expect the wrong value for rowIndex. > (On the other hand HTMLTableRowElement01.html expects the right value, > so there's currently no way to pass all those tests :) ). > I agree with David that the tests are in error and should be changed. Before I make the changes does anyone else have any comments or objections? Rick Rivello
Received on Tuesday, 17 December 2002 08:07:14 UTC