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 26591 - missing informative info in head sections of element definitions
Summary: missing informative info in head sections of element definitions
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: HTML WG
Classification: Unclassified
Component: CR HTML5 spec (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Hardware: Other All
: P2 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Robin Berjon
QA Contact: HTML WG Bugzilla archive list
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2014-08-17 17:27 UTC by steve faulkner
Modified: 2016-04-28 14:13 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:


Attachments

Description steve faulkner 2014-08-17 17:27:35 UTC
The 'head' section of every element in HTML 5.1 has information about tag omission rules and ARIA attributes that can be used on the element, this information is available for some but not all the elements in HTML5 CR. 

I propose adding this information to:
4.7.3 The embed element
4.7.4 The object element
4.7.5 The param element
4.7.6 The video element
4.7.7 The audio element
4.7.8 The source element
4.7.9 The track element
4.7.11 The map element
4.7.12 The area element
4.9.1 The table element
4.9.2 The caption element
4.9.3 The colgroup element
4.9.4 The col element
4.9.5 The tbody element
4.9.6 The thead element
4.9.7 The tfoot element
4.9.8 The tr element
4.9.9 The td element
4.9.10 The th element
4.10.3 The form element
4.10.4 The label element
4.10.5 The input element
4.10.6 The button element
4.10.7 The select element
4.10.8 The datalist element
4.10.9 The optgroup element
4.10.10 The option element
4.10.11 The textarea element
4.10.12 The keygen element
4.10.13 The output element
4.10.14 The progress element
4.10.15 The meter element
4.10.16 The fieldset element
4.10.17 The legend element
4.11.1 The script element
4.11.2 The noscript element
4.11.3 The template element
4.11.4 The canvas element
Comment 1 Silvia Pfeiffer 2014-08-18 23:21:47 UTC
SGTM
Comment 2 Robin Berjon 2014-08-28 15:13:37 UTC
Sure thing, go ahead. This is editorial and not a blocker for PR or REC.
Comment 3 steve faulkner 2016-04-28 14:13:54 UTC
fixed