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 14259 - <track> Drop Timestamp Objects on the floor instead of exposing as PIs
Summary: <track> Drop Timestamp Objects on the floor instead of exposing as PIs
Alias: None
Product: WHATWG
Classification: Unclassified
Component: HTML (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Hardware: Other other
: P3 normal
Target Milestone: Unsorted
Assignee: Ian 'Hixie' Hickson
QA Contact: contributor
Depends on:
Reported: 2011-09-23 13:30 UTC by contributor
Modified: 2012-07-18 18:39 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

See Also:


Description contributor 2011-09-23 13:30:49 UTC

Drop Timestamp Objects on the floor instead of exposing as PIs

Posted from: by
User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_5_8) AppleWebKit/535.2 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/15.0.874.21 Safari/535.2
Comment 1 Simon Pieters 2011-09-23 13:34:02 UTC
Exposing the timestamp as a PI is not very useful. If the author wants to use the timestamp info, he would need to parse them out manually and split the que into separate elements.

We discussed wrapping the time blocks in separate elements (spans) instead of using PIs, but in the end concluded that we'd rather defer satisfying this narrow use case sometime in the future (if ever), and dropping the PI now.
Comment 2 Ian 'Hixie' Hickson 2011-10-02 18:31:22 UTC
Isn't exposing them in a difficult way better than not exposing them at all?
Comment 3 Ian 'Hixie' Hickson 2011-10-20 23:14:47 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: Did Not Understand Request
Change Description: no spec change
Rationale: see comment 2