User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.3) Gecko/20030312 Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.3) Gecko/20030312 Minimal testcase: var attr=document.createAttribute('title'); attr.value='titleAttributeIsSpecified'; alert(attr.specified); // => false It doesn't make any difference if I append it to an element using setAttributeNode either. Haven't tried to append through NamedNodeMap.setNamedItem, but I assume the same is the case then. Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce:
sicking? This is all you, man. ;)
OS->All, Hardware->All, P4, see also bug 195350 Marking NEW.
Actually, it looks like .specified on an Attr node should be "true" if it has no element, regardless of whether the attribute has any sort of value (see http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-DOM-Level-2-Core-20001113/core.html#ID-637646024). At least if I read this spec correctly (it really doesn't seem to do a good job of addressing attributes that are not attached to elements).
Yeah, .specified should be set to true when creating the Attr node, as this passage IMO rakther clearly specifies: "If the ownerElement attribute is null (i.e. because it was just created or was set to null by the various removal and cloning operations) specified is true." Appending to an element SHOULD make no difference, but I tested it just to check that the behavior was the same. In moz it currently, wrongly, alerts false. (As a note, iem and iew alerts false. Op7 and saf alerts true.)
Mozilla currently doesn't do anything proper when it comes to .specified. We don't at all keep track of which attributes comes from default values and which were explcitly set. There is some code that is executed when getting .specified, but it looks like the person who wrote that totally missunderstood what it was supposed to be. The code looks if the attribute is set on the element or not, which of course is compleatly wrong. Anyhow, my recommendation is to not use .specified at all in mozilla, there is no support for it currently and I don't think it's very high up on anybodys priority-list. The problem is implementing .specified without adding bloat or reducing speed of other operations. Does anyone have a usecase where .specified is really needed, or is this strictly a correctness request? (not saying that correctness isn't important, just saying that there might be more important things out there)
Created attachment 320744 [details] [diff] [review] possible patch I think we could do this for now, since DTDs and Schemas aren't really supported. Gives one point in ACID3.
Comment on attachment 320744 [details] [diff] [review] possible patch Wow, ACID3 really tests a lot of junk
Comment on attachment 320744 [details] [diff] [review] possible patch You could have sr'd too ;) Thanks.
Comment on attachment 320744 [details] [diff] [review] possible patch Meh.
Worth adding a unit test?
Well, ACID3 has a test and dom1 testsuite has other tests
Ok, as long as we have an automated test for this in our tests we run on tinderbox, please flag in-testsuite+. If we don't, we need one.
Created attachment 328956 [details] [diff] [review] mochitest I'll commit this once the tree is less orange
backed out due to orange, per sheriff myk.
The patch has been cleared of culpability for the test failure and can land again when the tree reopens.