Welcome back to "This Week in HTML 5," where I'll try to summarize the major activity in the ongoing standards process in the WHATWG and W3C HTML Working Group.
- Header cells can now themselves have headers.
- I have reversed the way the algorithm is presented, such that it starts from a cell and reports the headers rather than generating the list of headers for each cell on a header-by-header basis.
- If headers="" points to a
<td>element, the association is set up, but I have left this non-conforming to help authors catch mistakes.
- Header cells that are automatically associating do not stop associating when they hit equivalent cells unless they have also hit a
"row"scope values now act like the implied auto value except that they force the direction.
- Empty header cells don't get automatically associated.
- I have removed the wide header cell heuristic.
- I have made headers="" use the same ID discovery mechanism as
getElementById(), to avoid implementations having to support multiple such mechanisms.
- Finally, I have made the spec define if a header is a column header or a row header in the case where
- I haven't added summary="" on table; nothing particularly new has been raised on the topic since the last times I looked at this.
Accessibility advocates are disappointed by the continued non-inclusion of the
summary attribute. Their reasoning is that "the
summary attribute is a very, very practical and useful attribute," despite their own user testing that shows otherwise. As Ian put it, "I am hesitant to include a feature like summary="" when all evidence seems to point to it being widely misused by authors and ignored by the users it intends to help." As with all issues, this is not the final word on the matter, but it's where we stand today.
In other news, r2566 addresses a very subtle issue with fetching images. The problem stems from the following (arguably pointless) markup:
<img src=""> A fair number of web pages actually try to declare an image with an empty
src attribute. According to the HTTP and URL specifications, this markup means that there is an image at the same address as the HTML document -- a theoretically possible but highly unlikely scenario. Internet Explorer apparently catches this mistake and just silently drops the image. Other browsers do not; they will actually try to fetch the image, which results in a "duplicate" request for the page (once to successfully retrieve the page, and again to unsuccessfully retrieve the image).
Boris Zbarsky, a leading Mozilla developer, states
We (Gecko) have had 28 independent bug reports filed (with people bothering to create an account in the bug database, etc) about the behavior difference from IE here. That's a much larger number of bug reports than we usually get about a given issue. I can't tell you why this pattern is so common (e.g. whether some authoring frameworks produce it in some cases), but it seems that a number of web developers not only produce markup like this but notice the requests in their HTTP logs and file bugs about it.
r2566 addresses the issue by special-casing
<img src> to allow browsers to ignore an image if its fetch request would result in fetching exactly the same URL as its HTML document:
When an img is created with a src attribute, and whenever the src attribute is set subsequently, the user agent must fetch the resource specifed by the src attribute's value, unless the user agent cannot support images, or its support for images has been disabled, or the user agent only fetches elements on demand, or the element's src attribute has a value that is an ignored self-reference.
The src attribute's value is an ignored self-reference if its value is the empty string, and the base URI of the element is the same as the document's address.
Other interesting tidbits this week:
- r2568 adds a
StorageEventobject. [StorageEvent deficiency]
- r2556 changes the processing model of the
<meta charset>attribute by requiring that it appear in the first 512 bytes of the document. For those of you playing along at home,
<meta charset="...">is the new
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=...">. Both forms are fully supported in all major browsers. [Comparing conformance requirements against real-world docs]
- r2557, r2559, r2560, r2562, r2563, and r2604 add a variety of common markup errors to the list of errors that HTML validators may treat as minor. [Re: comparing conformance requirements against real-world docs]
- r2561 allows the
<input type="image">, a construct that is already supported by all major browsers. [Re: comparing conformance requirements against real-world docs]
- r2601 adds an example of something that all browsers do anyway -- killing scripts that run too long.
- r2597 removes the notification API, which was kicked around in 2006 but never saw significant interest from either authors or browser vendors. [Notifications API removed]
- r2596 defines
blur()methods have historically been used to produce "pop-up" and "pop-under" windows containing advertisements. Most modern browsers now control how and whether scripts can do this, and the HTML 5 specification goes so far as to recommend that "[u]ser agents are encouraged to ignore calls to this
- r2552 gives an example of embedding RDF metadata in XHTML. As the spec notes, this is not possible in HTML, although you could always use RDFa.
- r2595 gives an example of marking up a tag cloud.
Tune in next week for another exciting episode of "This Week in HTML 5."