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 17153 - Nu validator wrongly stamps <command> in the <head> as invalid
Summary: Nu validator wrongly stamps <command> in the <head> as invalid
Status: CLOSED WORKSFORME
Alias: None
Product: HTML Checker
Classification: Unclassified
Component: General (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Hardware: PC All
: P2 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Michael[tm] Smith
QA Contact: qa-dev tracking
URL: http://validator.w3.org/nu/?doc=data%...
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2012-05-23 00:58 UTC by Leif Halvard Silli
Modified: 2013-04-22 00:09 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:


Attachments

Description Leif Halvard Silli 2012-05-23 00:58:01 UTC
Spec says that the "Metadata content" category is one of 3 categories for the <command> element and that <command> is allowed "Where metadata content is expected."

And HTML5 clearly lists <command> together wtih the <meta> element etc:
  http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/content-models.html#metadata-content

Further more IE10, Firefox 12, Opera 12 and Safari 5.1.7 all places the <command> in the <head>

However, the validator stamps <command> in the head as a bug.
Comment 1 Michael[tm] Smith 2012-05-29 10:57:03 UTC
Since <command> isn't actually supported by any browsers yet, it's not a big priority to have the validator properly support it. I don't understand what the current use case would be for anybody actually including it in a real-world Web document at this point. Given the fact that it's been in spec for 7 years or more now and nobody's actually implemented it, it seems possible that that could end up just being dropped from the spec entirely.
Comment 2 Leif Halvard Silli 2012-05-29 17:16:14 UTC
(In reply to comment #1)

If you think the HTML5 spec needs to be updated, then isn't the propert thing to file a bug? 

** 
   Note that I did not say that you should remove the validator's current warning against using <command>. I just said that the validator should reflect the fact <command> is permitted in <head>. **

I would further more argue that, after 7 years - 5 of them within W3C - browsers are picking up. OK, I don't know how deep their support of <command> is - but:

*  they can't see it as a unknown element, when they (as I said above) keep it in the <head> if you place it there. Which is a form of support. Because, if they had seen it as an unknown element, then they would have spit it out of <head> and placed in the body element.

* Note in this regard that IE8 too would keep it the head, becaue IE historically allowed new elements in the <head>. But note that IE9 did not keep it in the <head> - probably because it did not get its HTML5 implementation correct. Whereas IE10 *does* keep <command> in the head - but spits any other unknown element out of <head>.

* Thus, what the WHATwg spec says about implementation of <command>, is not entirely correct:
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/interactive-elements.html#the-command-element

* Meanwhile, the last changes to the command element was, according to HTML4-differences, the 25 May 2011 working draft, so it I don't know how old one actually claim <command> to be: http://www.w3.org/TR/html5-diff/#changes-2011-05-25
Comment 3 Leif Halvard Silli 2012-05-29 17:20:17 UTC
(In reply to comment #2)
> * Thus, what the WHATwg spec says about implementation of <command>, is not
> entirely correct:
> http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/interactive-elements.html#the-command-element

Sorry, if unclear: I meant that its implementation status note is not updated since 2009.
Comment 4 Michael[tm] Smith 2013-04-21 02:01:35 UTC
The command element has been dropped from the spec.