290397 - should assume "rect" for invalid value of shape attribute on an image map

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(Core :: Layout, defect)

Description

[Rizvic Kenan]

User-Agent:       Mozilla/4.78 (Windows NT 5.1; U) Opera 7.54  [en]
Build Identifier:  Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20041107 Firefox/1.0

If you put atribute shape (atribute of area html tag used to make image maps) 
incorrect like shape='recr' , Firefox won't be able to see any image map. It 
works fine in IE and Opera .

Reproducible: Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1.Make a new html page and put image which you want be maped with links (image 
maps)
2.When you write image maps tag, make shape atribut of tag Area something like 
this--> <area shape='gsah' coords="45,25,171,59" href="#">
3.save page and open it with firefox and it doesn't recognize maps. Do the same 
with IE and it will recognize besides small error in html

Actual Results:  
Cant recognize image maps (links on pictures)

Expected Results:  
It should recognize those maps even if shape atribut of area tag is incorrect.

Why IE , Opera and others can see image maps (important stuff in web design 
navigations) even if there is small error in html code (like incorrect shape 
atribute). This problems is seen from one of my Colleagues who accidently make 
this error while she was writing html code manually. She tested their pages in 
IE and there was no problem , but somebody tried to do it from firefox and ...

Comment 1

[Peter van der Woude [:Peter6]]

So, FF should assume "rect" if the shape name is rubbish ?

If you validate the page 
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A//www.rile.4ba.net/image_map/
you can easily find and correct the error.

Comment 2

[Rizvic Kenan]

I know that this is error but why Internet explorer and opera can see image maps 
 even if there is a error but firefox can't. I think  main thing that IE and 
opera watch at area  tag is coords attribute. 
Is it possible to make it "not so importatnt" shape atribute?
I know that it seems that  i ask to make error to be "valid" but i can't watch 
IE and opera to be insensetive on that error and firefox not to be so.
 

Comment 3

[Boris Zbarsky [:bzbarsky]]

Are there any real-life pages where this is an issue?

Comment 4

[Bob Clary [:bc] (inactive)]

(In reply to comment #3)
> Are there any real-life pages where this is an issue?

I don't know of a large number of pages with this problem but assume it is as
common (and no more) than other mispellings we see.  It might be good for
compatibility's sake, but without more data I don't see the point of this
whack-a-mole compatibility approach. It would be worthwhile post ff1.1/gecko1.8
to investigate improving compatibility across the board in these undefined error
cases.

Comment 5

[Boris Zbarsky [:bzbarsky]]

> but without more data I don't see the point of this whack-a-mole compatibility
> approach.

Absolutely agreed.

Comment 6

[Hixie (not reading bugmail)]

Feel free to raise cases like this on the whatwg list to make sure I cover them
(or just cc me on these bugs and that will work to, as I store my bugmail for
these cases in the same whatwg TODO list).

Comment 7

[Gervase Markham [:gerv]]

This is an automated message, with ID "auto-resolve01".

This bug has had no comments for a long time. Statistically, we have found that
bug reports that have not been confirmed by a second user after three months are
highly unlikely to be the source of a fix to the code.

While your input is very important to us, our resources are limited and so we
are asking for your help in focussing our efforts. If you can still reproduce
this problem in the latest version of the product (see below for how to obtain a
copy) or, for feature requests, if it's not present in the latest version and
you still believe we should implement it, please visit the URL of this bug
(given at the top of this mail) and add a comment to that effect, giving more
reproduction information if you have it.

If it is not a problem any longer, you need take no action. If this bug is not
changed in any way in the next two weeks, it will be automatically resolved.
Thank you for your help in this matter.

The latest beta releases can be obtained from:
Firefox:     http://www.mozilla.org/projects/firefox/
Thunderbird: http://www.mozilla.org/products/thunderbird/releases/1.5beta1.html
Seamonkey:   http://www.mozilla.org/projects/seamonkey/

Comment 8

[Peter van der Woude [:Peter6]]

based on comment #5 , #6 , #7 ->NEW

Comment 9

[Boris Zbarsky [:bzbarsky]]

Wontfix.  Just not worth it.

Comment 10

[Hixie (not reading bugmail)]

For what it's worth, when I specced image maps in HTML5 I did end up making "rect" the default. I figured it was even more unlikely that IE would change on this than that Mozilla would change, and figured that it was more useful to default to something than to simply not do anything when an invalid shape="" was provided, especially given legacy UA behaviour.

Comment 11

[:Ms2ger (he/him; ⌚ UTC+1/+2)]

Attachment: Patch v1

No idea how to write a test for this...

Comment 12

[Boris Zbarsky [:bzbarsky]]

You can write a mochitest that delivers clicks that should hit the imagemap and see whether the document is navigated, right?

Comment 13

[Boris Zbarsky [:bzbarsky]]

Ms2ger, are you planning to write a test and then ask for review, or should I just review as-is for now?

Comment 14

[:Ms2ger (he/him; ⌚ UTC+1/+2)]

Comment on attachment 427938 [details] [diff] [review]
Patch v1

I'll write a test first, but I've been quite busy lately.

Comment 15

[:Ms2ger (he/him; ⌚ UTC+1/+2)]

Attachment: Patch v2

Now with a test.

Comment 16

[Boris Zbarsky [:bzbarsky]]

Comment on attachment 433553 [details] [diff] [review]
Patch v2

The test has no actual pass/fail conditions that I can see... am I missing something?  Does the test fail without the C++ part of the patch?

I'd also prefer making rect and rectangle be values 0 and 1, and ordering the rect values in -2, -1, 0, 1 order in the switch.  Might make it simpler for the compiler to optimize.

Comment 17

[:Ms2ger (he/him; ⌚ UTC+1/+2)]

Attachment: Patch v3

Addressed comments.

Comment 18

[Boris Zbarsky [:bzbarsky]]

Comment on attachment 450841 [details] [diff] [review]
Patch v3

r=bzbarsky; sorry for the lag.  Do you need this landed?

Comment 19

[Boris Zbarsky [:bzbarsky]]

Pushed http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/12b8d2ea6786

Comment 20

[:Ms2ger (he/him; ⌚ UTC+1/+2)]

Thanks!