12288 2011-03-11 15:18:12 +0000 select.size should be limited to non-negative numbers instead of non-negative numbers greater than zero 2011-08-15 19:34:24 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified HTML WG LC1 HTML5 spec unspecified All All RESOLVED FIXED P2 normal --- 1 mounir ian ayg bugs contributor ian jonas mike public-html-admin public-html-wg-issue-tracking public-html-bugzilla oldest_to_newest 46630 0 mounir 2011-03-11 15:18:12 +0000 Gecko has select.size limited to non-negative numbers greater than zero since nearly 10 months now but we recently got three bug reports that let us think this change wasn't web compatible. Currently, select.size works this way for other vendors: - no limitation: Firefox 3.6, Chrome 11, Opera 11 and Webkit trunk ; - limited to non-negative numbers: IE6 and IE9 (I assume 7 and 8 too) ; - limited to non-negative numbers greater than zero: Firefox 4. Given that the current specs state isn't web compatible and IE6/9 have select.size limited to non-negative numbers, we can probably have select.size limited to non-negative numbers instead of non-negative numbers greater than zero. For information. the tree Gecko bugs: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=639175 (issue with Yahoo Answers) https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=640636 (issue with jQuery) https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=640800 (no website involved) It goes without saying that these three bugs were involving select.size=0. 46658 1 mounir 2011-03-14 02:27:02 +0000 Even if I don't really think this bug need more arguments, select.size is currently in a situation where, this raises an exception: var select = document.createElement('select'); select.size = select.size; Given that 0 is the default value. I believe this is seriously wrong... 48295 2 ian 2011-05-07 19:17:26 +0000 EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document: http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html Status: Accepted Change Description: see diff given below Rationale: Concurred with reporter's comments. 48296 3 contributor 2011-05-07 19:17:54 +0000 Checked in as WHATWG revision r6119. Check-in comment: select.size has odd legacy behaviour required for compat http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker?from=6118&to=6119 48450 4 ayg 2011-05-10 17:42:05 +0000 This introduces a contradiction. In the IDL, "size" is an unsigned long, but the prose says it's limited to only non-negative numbers. The prose for "limited to only non-negative numbers" is defined only for long, not unsigned long: "If a reflecting IDL attribute has a signed integer type (long) that is limited to only non-negative numbers . . ." You probably meant to change the IDL type for "size" from "unsigned long" to "long". 49286 5 ayg 2011-06-07 21:33:11 +0000 *** Bug 12899 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** 53924 6 mike 2011-08-04 05:34:31 +0000 mass-move component to LC1 55022 7 ian 2011-08-15 04:21:05 +0000 EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document: http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html Status: Accepted Change Description: see diff given below Rationale: Yeah, that wasn't right. But the fix in comment 4 isn't quite right either. :-) 55023 8 contributor 2011-08-15 04:21:24 +0000 Checked in as WHATWG revision r6455. Check-in comment: Actually fix r6119 properly. http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker?from=6454&to=6455 55134 9 ayg 2011-08-15 19:34:24 +0000 Looks good to me.