24135 2013-12-19 10:17:42 +0000 form[name] non-normative text inconsistent 2014-03-07 23:53:55 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified WHATWG HTML unspecified PC Windows NT RESOLVED WORKSFORME P2 normal Unsorted 1 sof ian ian mike zcorpan contributor oldest_to_newest 97802 0 sof 2013-12-19 10:17:42 +0000 The non-normative text for form[name] in http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#the-form-element states that only <img> elements with the given ID can match. I believe this should be by ID or name. 97932 1 ian 2014-01-02 20:40:05 +0000 Do you have a test demonstrating this? I'm not 100% sure I follow. 97945 2 sof 2014-01-02 21:05:20 +0000 Certainly, <form><img name="n"/></form><script>alert(document.forms[0]["n"]);</script> Per that non-normative text afaict, the <img/> won't match. (I'm assuming the "Returns the form control" part of that text to refer to the 'listed elements' of the form. Which does not have <img/>.) 98003 3 ian 2014-01-04 22:10:15 +0000 Ah, I see. Yeah, that's intentional. The non-normative text ignores what happens for non-normative content. <img name> is non-normative. 98007 4 sof 2014-01-05 07:10:24 +0000 That doesn't make much sense :-) Where is <img name> called out as being outside of what the spec requires when the algorithms below (in normative text) includes it, but without stating that it is not a requirement to also consider <img name>? I would expect the non-normative box to be a summary of normative text, at least here. (A trifling detail given that the text isn't normative, but still.) 98216 5 ian 2014-01-09 19:02:51 +0000 (In reply to sof from comment #4) > Where is <img name> called out as being > outside of what the spec requires when the algorithms below (in normative > text) includes it, but without stating that it is not a requirement to also > consider <img name>? I don't understand that question. The idea is that implementors refer to the normative text to implement browsers, and authors refer to the non-normative text when figuring out how the APIs work. Authors don't need to know anything about what happens with <img name>, since if they're using it they've probably made a mistake, and the validator will help them to convert to using id="" or whatnot. So the non-normative text doesn't mention it. This is one of the main ways the non-normative API descriptions differ from the normative ones; if the non-normative text were pedantically correct, it might as well be normative. 98225 6 sof 2014-01-09 20:29:03 +0000 A problem here is/was how the line between normative and not is drawn (where is that defined); just trust the non-normative text as always being accurate? But I now see that http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#non-conforming-features enumerates img.name as obsolete. So, we're fine in this regard. 102093 7 ian 2014-03-07 23:53:17 +0000 (In reply to sof from comment #6) > A problem here is/was how the line between normative and not is drawn (where > is that defined); just trust the non-normative text as always being accurate? As an implementors, you should just ignore the non-normative text entirely. Especially the domintro blocks, but also anything that says "Note:", to be honest. 102094 8 ian 2014-03-07 23:53:55 +0000 And definitely ignore all the examples. And the diagrams. And the text in the indexes, and any tables marked non-normative, and... :-)