430691 - When parsing a "tel" property, ignore type "type" when inferring the value.

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(Toolkit Graveyard :: Microformats, defect)

Description

[Mike Kaply [:mkaply]]

Attachment: Fix for problem plus unit test

This was discovered as a result of the new "microformat acid test" (http://microformatique.com/optimus/test.html)

Per the hcard spec, if a tel has no value but it does have a type, when you use the contents of the node to get the value, you are supposed to ignore the type node.

I was not doing this.

Patch and testcase is attached to fix this.

As I was doing this work, I removed "implied" from the overall "tel" and made "value" virtual and discovered that this made the "implied" behavior unnecessary.

At some point in time I made virtual work well enough that implied was not needed.

So this patch also removes implied support. (only one element was still "implied" - organization-name to org, and the test suite verifies this still works great)

So this patch removes some code and makes the referenced testcase work and adds two new tests to cover this case.

Comment 1

[Mike Kaply [:mkaply]]

Attachment: Handle email case as well

Same problem exists for email, so here is patch and test.

This patch depends on previous patch.

Comment 2

[Mike Kaply [:mkaply]]

fix checked in.

Comment 3

[Mike Kaply [:mkaply]]

Comment on attachment 317568 [details] [diff] [review]
Fix for problem plus unit test

correctness fix for microformats

Comment 4

[Mike Kaply [:mkaply]]

Comment on attachment 321159 [details] [diff] [review]
Handle email case as well

microformats correctness fix

Comment 5

[Mike Connor [:mconnor]]

Comment on attachment 321159 [details] [diff] [review]
Handle email case as well

In order to reduce risk and minimize overhead for stability releases, we are not accepting "nice to have" patches in stability releases.  As 3.1 is fast approaching, this should not unduly impact time to get these fixes to users.

Comment 6

[Mike Connor [:mconnor]]

Comment on attachment 317568 [details] [diff] [review]
Fix for problem plus unit test

In order to reduce risk and minimize overhead for stability releases, we are not accepting "nice to have" patches in stability releases.  As 3.1 is fast approaching, this should not unduly impact time to get these fixes to users.