w3c / html Goto Github PK

http://w3c.github.io/html/semantics.html#sections
suggest moving to grouping content
http://w3c.github.io/html/semantics.html#grouping-content

The specification says that header and footer elements cannot contain each other, so cannot be nested.

There is a longstanding bug and some use cases, and it isn't clear what purpose is served by the restriction.

Seems reasonable to me that we drop the restriction. Does anyone know of something that would actually break?

in http://w3c.github.io/html/editing.html#inertness

"When a new dialog is made to block a Document"
'block' is incorrectly linked to https://drafts.csswg.org/css-display-3/#block

saw this: https://twitter.com/diffofhtmls/status/699567375633350656 I checked through commits and found no issue. Appears as if publishing process has added some random code?

Originally posted to [email protected] [1].

In description of application-name,
Current text is :

<p>
The value must be a short free-form string giving the name of the Web application that the page represents.
If the page is not a Web application, the <code data-anolis-xref="meta-application-name"><a href="#meta-application-name">application-name</a></code> metadata name must not be used. 
Translations of the Web application's name may be given, using the <code data-anolis-xref="attr-lang"><a href="dom.html#attr-lang"></a></code> attribute to specify the language of each name.
</p>

i think that it shoud be :

<p>
The value must be a short free-form string giving the name of the Web application that the page represents.
If the page is not a Web application, the <code data-anolis-xref="meta-application-name"><a href="#meta-application-name">application-name</a></code> metadata name must not be used. 
Translations of the Web application's name may be given, using the <code data-anolis-xref="attr-lang"><a href="dom.html#attr-lang">lang</a></code> attribute to specify the language of each name.
</p>

[1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2015Nov/0001.html

the main element definition no longer reflects the W3C version
http://w3c.github.io/html/#the-main-element
update to reflect:
https://www.w3.org/TR/2014/WD-html51-20140204/grouping-content.html#the-main-element

https://github.com/w3c/html/blob/gh-pages/sections/rendering.include

<<a>nested browsing context</a>

should be

<a>nested browsing context</a>

10.3.2. The page
https://w3c.github.io/html/rendering.html#the-page

then the user agent is expected to prevent any scroll bars from being shown for the viewport of the <nested browsing context, regardless of the overflow property that applies to that viewport.

10.4. Replaced elements
https://w3c.github.io/html/rendering.html#replaced-elements

An object element that represents an image, plugin, or <nested browsing context is expected

10.6. Frames and framesets
https://w3c.github.io/html/rendering.html#frames-and-framesets

Otherwise, it is a frame element; render its <nested browsing context, positioned and sized to fit the rectangle.

The explanation of how to provide feedback on the spec mentions [email protected]. This needs to be updated to point to Github issues instead.

It would be helpful to all if issues could be labelled. In the ARIA repo we have some for the different documents, like: APG, ARIA, AAM, etc. We also have some for specific topics, which might be more suited here: accessibility, security, editorial, etc.

There are few wrong bikeshed tag in 10.5 Bindings.

10.5.1. Introduction
https://w3c.github.io/html/rendering.html#bindings-introduction
https://github.com/w3c/html/blob/gh-pages/sections/rendering.include#L1471

  The CSS snippets below set the 'binding' property to a user-agent-defined value, represented
  below by keywords like <{<i>button</i>}>.

should be

  The CSS snippets below set the 'binding' property to a user-agent-defined value, represented
  below by keywords like <{button}>.

10.5.11. The marquee element
https://w3c.github.io/html/rendering.html#the-marquee-element-rendering
https://github.com/w3c/html/blob/gh-pages/sections/rendering.include#L1797

<{marquee}'s content area.

should be

<{marquee}>'s content area.

Consider replacing those with DOMTokenList instead.

The CSS user agent style sheet of "10.3.6. Quotes" is broken
https://w3c.github.io/html/rendering.html#quotes

     <p>@namespace url(http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml);</p>
     <p>:root                                                         { quotes: '\201c' '\201d' '\2018' '\2019' } /* “ ” ‘ ’ */

should be

<pre class="highlight">@namespace url(http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml);
:root                                                         { quotes: '\201c' '\201d' '\2018' '\2019' } /* “ ” ‘ ’ */

Translated from a post of a local developer community by mount-root-yy.

• On the Guidance for conformance checkers of , the second bullet item mentions the title attribute, but the link is not related to it.
• "datetime-local" is missing on the list of valid type attributes of
• The content model of with a datetime attribute should be "phrasing content" and one without datetime attribute should be "Text" according to the following statement: "A time element that does not have a datetime content attribute must not have any element descendants."

The keygen is stated to be in the process of being removed from the Web platform, probably due to a lack of implementations, and its use is discouraged.

So why isn't it listed as obsolete feature?

http://w3c.github.io/html/obsolete.html#non-conforming-features , end of section:

The <{{table/border}>` attribute on the table element can be used to

I was elaborating a polyfill for what I consider a missing feature in form validation (you can find it, along with the related proposal, in my repositories) and I found out a limitation regarding how custom validity is defined.
The current mechanism of defining an error based on its error message, while efficient sometimes, makes it quite difficult for scripts defining different custom errors to interact with each other.
In my case, for example, I chose to check whether the custom error message matches mine in order to remove it when the user fixes the mistake, so that the custom error is not removed if another one occurs.
I think this could be done in a better way using the element.validity property:

• allow authors to define new validity error properties, as my script does with validity.groupMissing: authors will have to let these properties return true in conditions defined by the script.
• make sure element.validity.valid returns true only if all other validity errors (either native or custom) return false
• let invalid event depend directly on element.validity. Currently browsers implement a sort of internal API to do that, so if I define it another way without also using element.setCustomValidity, the event is not fired.
• let errorMessage be writable, so that once the event is fired (according to element.validity) the message can be produced on-the-fly without having to reset it when user intervenes.
• of course customError should be left as-is, both for compatibility with current situation and for enabling easier cases.

Of course this could be done in a different way but I suppose it wouldn't be compatible with current API: customError could return an object, whose properties are defined by separate instances of setCustomValidity.
element.setCustomValidity('groupMissing', 'error message for groupMissing')
This way different error messages can be identified and removed, and customError is true only if all the custom error messages correspond to empty strings (it would be interesting how these messages can be returned, though, and there would be issues about what element.errorMessage should return).

Could it be done spec-side? Or does it depend on how vendors interpret the specification?

Projects using gh-pages usually put that URL at the top of the front page.
It just saves a few seconds to anyone visiting who wants to take a look at the generated document :)

All references to members of HTMLMediaElement, including attributes and constants used to be links to the definition. Now, they are no longer links. Even some attributes are no longer links in the Web IDL itself.

Specific examples (compare to https://www.w3.org/TR/html/embedded-content-0.html#media-elements):

• Member constants, such as NETWORK_EMPTY and HAVE_NOTHING are links in the IDL but nowhere else in the document.
• Some member attributes, such as networkState, are not a link anywhere in the document, including In the IDL.

HTMLObjectElement and other elements have similar issues, so this is not limited to media elements.

Originally posted by @valerii-zinchenko [1]

First code example.
Current text:
"In this example, a person uploads a photo, as part of a bulk upoad of many images..."
I think it should be:
"In this example, a person uploads a photo, as part of a bulk upload of many images..."

[1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2015Oct/0003.html

The spec includes informative content about which ARIA role/states/properties it is conforming to use on each element. This content needs to be udpated to reflect the definitions in ARIA in HTML

There is no reason to require that values proposed for accesskey are a single character, and multiple reasons not to do so.

Note that Internet Explorer supports this.

Focus management with respect to tabindex in the shadow DOM was discussed at TPAC [1]. An issue to update the Shadow DOM spec has since been opened [2].

The issue includes a suggestion to update the HTML specification (5.4.3 the tabindex attribute [3]).

[1] https://www.w3.org/2015/10/26-webapps-minutes.html
[2] WICG/webcomponents#375 (comment)
[3] http://w3c.github.io/html/editing.html#the-tabindex-attribute

is the single-page.html file auto updated when changes are made to the .bs files?

The current specification does not mention user preferences, but does suggest user agents make determinations based on the user's keyboard - something that in practice they do not, and cannot do.

It is something that doesn't do what people expect, and while it is used today in combination with web storage and other techniques, we expect it to be rendered truly obsolete by Service Workers.

There is an HTML5 recommendation, showing people how to implement appcache, if they want to make 2015-era browsers.

Firefox has deprecated, and plans to remove it in favour of service workers.

At some point, HTML specs should stop recommending its use. Have we reached that point yet?

This Version: http://www.w3.org/TR/2016/WD-html-5.1-20160113/ - Document not found

Latest version: http://www.w3.org/TR/html/ - This points to HTML5, W3C Recommendation 28 October 2014. Is it correct?

Previous Versions: http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/WD-html51-20140204/ - Is this correct? Shouldn't it be http://www.w3.org/TR/2015/WD-html51-20151008/ (HTML 5.1, W3C Working Draft 08 October 2015)?

Issue Tracking: GitHub (https://github.com/MicrosoftEdge/HTML/issues/) - Incorrect link

EDIT: the multipage version is appreciated 😄 but unfortunately some links are broken! (all links to table sorting model in semantics.html lack the # and as such they don't work).

As many people have been lead to believe it actually effects the semantics of headings, when in practice it does not, currently HTML has a warning for web developers about the document outline algorithm as its semantics are not implemented in UA's and visual styling of headings based on their section nesting is only partially implemented.

In a related issue discussion, I started, based on the lack of developer advice in the whatwg spec whatwg/html#83 there has been talk of removing/modifying the algorithm and how sectioning elements (in particular section and article elements) effect the semantics of headings.

We need to look more into the issues with the algorithm and decide the future of how document outlines are expressed in HTML and how the current semantics of sectioning elements could/should be changed.

related:
https://www.w3.org/wiki/HTML/Usage/Headings/h1only

This is a global comment, and a nit. W3C Recommendations use American English (for better or worse). In American English, the abbreviation 'e.g.' should ALWAYS have a comma after it, as should the abbreviation 'i.e.'.

I would submit a PR for this, but it would be vast and the potential for collision is high. Sorry :(

Originally posted by @valerii-zinchenko [1]

Current text:
"... As the information conveyed by the icon is redundant the img element is given an an empty alt attribute."
I think it should be:
"... As the information conveyed by the icon is redundant the img element is given an empty alt attribute."

[1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2015Oct/0003.html

There needs to be a proper changelog, that normal people can understand, similar to https://www.w3.org/TR/html5-diff/ to clarify what has changed since HTML 5 - and ideally between milestone working drafts, to assist review.

As far as I can tell, drop zone isn't supported on existing browsers.
Test at:
http://w3c-test.org/html/editing/dnd/dropzone/007.html

Admittedly, this issue refers to an element which has met a terrible fate (hasn't it?) due to lack of implementation.

The allowed keywords for type attribute on <menu> element have been listed as popup and toolbar since May 2013 and up until October 2015. Now the current version of the draft has aligned with its original definition, mapping the popup state with the context keyword. I think popup value should be listed among the obsolete features, in order to make this change more evident.

Bikeshed already includes the necessary html include files in its source tree (and has fixed one of them in a way that is not reflected in this repo's stale copy).

That whole directory should be deleted from this repo, and the README instructions altered to remove the reference to it.

Is it in W3C plans to remove seamless attribute from <iframe> element as it has been done in WHATWG draft?

If that's the case, will authors have to explicitly link stylesheets/embed <style> elements inside srcdoc documents in order for them to look more integrated with the containing document?

There are several broken links in the document where <a href="#something"> exists without a corresponding <xxx id="something">. These are found by the multipage splitter. The current list is:

Link not found: #a
Link not found: #title
Link not found: #http://www.w3.org/TR/2dcontext/
Link not found: #https://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/PragmaExtensions
Link not found: #http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-lite/
Link not found: #image
Link not found: #http://www.w3.org/WAI/alt/
Link not found: #http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/waterhouse-the-lady-of-shalott-n01543
Link not found: #http://www.bbc.com/weather/6690829
Link not found: #http://www.w3.org/TR/turingtest/
Link not found: #audio
Link not found: #option
Link not found: #https://wiki.mozilla.org/CA:Certificate_Download_Specification
Link not found: #http://www.iso.org/iso/country_codes/iso_3166_code_lists/country_names_and_code_elements.htm
Link not found: #http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/CanvasContexts
Link not found: #http://www.whatwg.org/demos/offline/clock/live-demo/clock.html
Link not found: #attribute-value-%28double-quoted%29-state
Link not found: #attribute-value-%28single-quoted%29-state
Link not found: #attribute-value-%28unquoted%29-state
Link not found: #after-attribute-value-%28quoted%29-state
Link not found: #biblio-css-values-3
Link not found: #biblio-cssom-1
Link not found: #biblio-cssom-view-1

has been removed in whatwg due to lack of implementer interest
whatwg/html#345

related ARIA thread
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-aria/2016Feb/thread.html#msg11

We al like to use the force, but is it really necessary to bikeshed the spec with it? If there are no issues, bikeshed spec should work too, right?

There are few wrong bikeshed tags in 2. Common infrastructure

2.1.1. Resources
https://w3c.github.io/html/infrastructure.html#resources

The term data: URL refers to [[url#urls|URLs]] that use the data: scheme.

2.1.6. Character encodings
https://w3c.github.io/html/infrastructure.html#encoding-terminology

but isolated surrogates must each be treated as the single code point with the value of the surrogate. [[!UNICODE]

2.7.1. Reflecting content attributes in IDL attributes
https://w3c.github.io/html/infrastructure.html#reflecting-content-attributes-in-idl-attributes

If a reflecting IDL attribute is a DOMString attribute whose content attribute is defined to contain one or more [[url#urls|URLs]],

2.4.5.8. Weeks
https://w3c.github.io/html/infrastructure.html#weeks

   <ol start="8601">
     <li data-md="">
      <p><a data-link-type="biblio" href="references.html#biblio-iso8601">[ISO8601]</a></p>
    </li></ol>

2.4.8. Comma-separated tokens
https://w3c.github.io/html/infrastructure.html#comma-separated-tokens

has a following typo.

<p>Return <var>tokens</var>.&lt;</p>

should be

<p>Return <var>tokens</var>.</p>

If I run Bikshed after I've fixed a bug in the spec, it will set the issue link in single-page.html to my GitHub repository. This prevents me to run all the steps in the contributing guide. Should I create pull requests without running Bikeshed?

To be more specific, Bikeshed generates this code:

<dt>Issue Tracking:
<dd><a href="https://github.com/MichielBijl/html/issues/">GitHub</a>

While the instructions are clear, there should be more information on this project, some subjects that I feel should be in the README:

• Some background information
• Who to contact for access / how to join the relevant W3C WG
• More information on contributing (maybe link to CONTRIBUTING.md?): see #17

This is only supported by Internet Explorer - other browsers that support HTML4 accesskey fail to provide any working shortcut if there is more than a single character given as the attribute value.

The current spec is an editor's draft but uses the WD template. We need to create the ED template and change the single-page.bs to use Status: ED.

We will also eventually need templates for CR, PR, and Rec.

http://w3c.github.io/html/#wai-aria needs to be updated to reflect https://www.w3.org/TR/html51/dom.html#wai-aria

Work with @arronei to figure out why acknowledgements.include isn't referenced into the main spec (and some of the other include files).

https://w3c.github.io/html/introduction.html#presentational-markup

It seems that markdown conversion created a wrong markup in 1.10.1. Presentational markup.

https://github.com/w3c/html/blob/gh-pages/sections/introduction.include#L838

  : Larger document sizes
  :: Presentational markup tends to be much more redundant, and thus results in larger document
      sizes.

      For those reasons, presentational markup has been removed from HTML in this version. ...

should be

  : Larger document sizes
  :: Presentational markup tends to be much more redundant, and thus results in larger document
      sizes.

  For those reasons, presentational markup has been removed from HTML in this version. ...

because "For those reaseons" means "The use of presentational elements leads to poorer accessibility", "Higher cost of maintenance" and "Larger document sizes".

I noticed that the list of elements before which a p element’s end tag may be omitted at
(1) http://w3c.github.io/html/#the-p-element
is different from
(2) https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/semantics.html#the-p-element
(3) https://www.w3.org/TR/2015/WD-html51-20151008/semantics.html#the-p-element
Is this intentional? In particular, I’d like to see the figure element included which (1) lacks but which is included in (2) and (3).

1.4. History
https://w3c.github.io/html/introduction.html#introduction-history
https://github.com/w3c/html/blob/gh-pages/sections/introduction.include#L78

more pragmatic approach known as HTML3.2,

should be

more pragmatic approach known as HTML 3.2,

HTML 3.2
https://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html32

Note: WHATWG HTML Standard uses the term 'HTML 3.2'
https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/introduction.html#history-2

need to tweak formatting of some of the examples in
http://w3c.github.io/html/#alt-text

The W3C link checker shows several broken links including the table sorting model links reported in issue #36.