This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.

Bug 12226 - incorrect example in section 1.9.2 syntax errors
Summary: incorrect example in section 1.9.2 syntax errors
Alias: None
Product: HTML WG
Classification: Unclassified
Component: LC1 HTML5 spec (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Hardware: PC Windows NT
: P3 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Ian 'Hixie' Hickson
QA Contact: HTML WG Bugzilla archive list
Depends on:
Reported: 2011-03-02 22:58 UTC by steve faulkner
Modified: 2012-01-13 09:53 UTC (History)
7 users (show)

See Also:


Description steve faulkner 2011-03-02 22:58:48 UTC
this "<tr role="cell">" is not currently considered a conformance error as you removed any role constraints on table related elements. So suggest replacing it with  an example that is actually a conformance error.

from the spec:

"Errors that involve a conflict in expressed semantics
Similarly, to draw the author's attention to mistakes in the use of elements, clear contradictions in the semantics expressed are also considered conformance errors.

In the fragments below, for example, the semantics are nonsensical: a row cannot simultaneously be a cell, nor can a radio button be a progress bar.

<tr role="cell">  <input type=radio role=progressbar>"
Comment 1 Michael Cooper 2011-03-08 16:21:53 UTC
Bug triage sub-team thinks this is not a A11Y TF priority, can be worked out by original filer.
Comment 2 Ian 'Hixie' Hickson 2011-05-06 00:55:06 UTC
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:

Status: Accepted
Change Description: see diff given below
Rationale: Concurred with reporter's comments.

...though the fact that the spec now allows people to mark rows as cells is pretty crazy.
Comment 3 contributor 2011-05-06 00:56:03 UTC
Checked in as WHATWG revision r6098.
Check-in comment: correctness
Comment 4 steve faulkner 2011-05-13 09:20:58 UTC
> ...though the fact that the spec now allows people to mark rows as cells is
> pretty crazy.

agreed, but it was your doing.
Comment 5 Michael[tm] Smith 2011-08-04 05:14:44 UTC
mass-move component to LC1
Comment 6 steve faulkner 2012-01-13 09:53:00 UTC
removed keywords as is fixed