.scope property on td/th should be limited to only known values

RESOLVED FIXED in Firefox 49

Status

()

RESOLVED FIXED
3 years ago
3 years ago

People

(Reporter: ayg, Assigned: ayg)

Tracking

unspecified
mozilla49
Points:
---

Firefox Tracking Flags

(firefox49 fixed)

Details

(Whiteboard: btpp-active)

Attachments

(1 attachment)

Spec:

"The scope IDL attribute must reflect the content attribute of the same name, limited to only known values."
https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/tables.html#dom-th-scope

Existing UAs do not limit to known values (tested in Firefox, Chrome, and IE 11).  I recall this being discussed somewhere (probably on GitHub, but I can't find it), and the conclusion was that we'd prefer to make enum properties reflect known values if we can get away with it.  From what I was told, the usage of .scope is about zero, so it shouldn't hurt to limit it.
Created attachment 8749150 [details] [diff] [review]
0001-Bug-1270459-Limit-td-th.scope-to-known-values.patch

https://treeherder.mozilla.org/#/jobs?repo=try&revision=959ae4487347&exclusion_profile=false
Attachment #8749150 - Flags: review?(bzbarsky)
Comment on attachment 8749150 [details] [diff] [review]
0001-Bug-1270459-Limit-td-th.scope-to-known-values.patch

r=me, I guess.  Do other UAs do this?
Attachment #8749150 - Flags: review?(bzbarsky) → review+
No, as noted in comment #0.
OK, then I'm a bit worried about compat impact.  I agree that the usage should be low, but still...

It might be a good idea to add some telemetry to see how much this getter is being called.
Whiteboard: btpp-active

Comment 6

3 years ago
bugherder
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/e5019fbf51a1
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 3 years ago
status-firefox49: --- → fixed
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla49
Wouldn't it make more sense to fix the spec to follow what implementations do? 
If the usage is low, is there really any reason to change the behavior?
Flags: needinfo?(ayg)
I discussed it at some point with somebody (I forget where :( ) and was told that if there's not much compat risk or implementation burden, we'd prefer to try making the platform slightly more consistent instead of matching implementations.  I don't feel strongly either way, but since it was a simple change and I don't expect it makes any real difference to our users, I thought it was a more productive use of everyone's time to just implement the spec and be done with it than to get into a discussion.
Flags: needinfo?(ayg)
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.