15455 2012-01-08 10:35:15 +0000 <details> elements without a child <summary> element should automatically get one (not just a text label) 2012-07-18 18:48:19 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified WHATWG HTML unspecified Other other RESOLVED WONTFIX http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#the-details-element P3 normal Unsorted 1 contributor ian ian mathias mike contributor oldest_to_newest 62378 0 contributor 2012-01-08 10:35:15 +0000 Specification: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/interactive-elements.html Multipage: http://www.whatwg.org/C#the-details-element Complete: http://www.whatwg.org/c#the-details-element Comment: <details> elements without a child <summary> element should automatically get one (not just a text label) Posted from: 78.20.165.163 by mathias@qiwi.be User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_7_2) AppleWebKit/535.16 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/18.0.999.0 Safari/535.16 62379 1 mathias 2012-01-08 10:44:55 +0000 > The first `summary` element child of the element, if any, represents the summary or legend of the > details. If there is no child `summary` element, the user agent should provide its own legend (e.g. > "Details"). It would be infinitely more useful if <details> elements without a child <summary> element would automatically get a <summary> element inserted with the default text content of “Details”, rather than just a text label. Currently it’s not possible to easily select the inserted text label in CSS or JavaScript (AFAIK) and style it or bind event handlers to it. Changing this would make it much easier to polyfill <details>/<summary> in this case, as we could then rely on the <summary> element being there in all cases. To clarify, what I’m proposing here is that… <details><p>Foo</p></details> …generates the following DOM: <details> <summary>Details</summary> <p>Foo</p> </details> …instead of: <details> Details <p>Foo</p> </details> 62380 2 mathias 2012-01-08 10:46:09 +0000 > …instead of: > > <details> > Details > <p>Foo</p> > </details> Sorry, that obviously should’ve been: <details> <p>Foo</p> </details> 63623 3 ian 2012-02-03 06:30:03 +0000 You're not allowed to omit the <summary>, so IMHO it doesn't really matter what happens when you omit it so long as it's the same everywhere. 63629 4 mathias 2012-02-03 09:18:43 +0000 (In reply to comment #3) > You're not allowed to omit the <summary>, so IMHO it doesn't really matter what > happens when you omit it so long as it's the same everywhere. Well, this does make it much harder to create a polyfill that supports the case where <summary> is omitted (see comment #1). Then again, if it’s invalid to do so, I guess a polyfill probably shouldn’t bother supporting it.