| Summary: | [content model] Attribute value "number" missing from input's type attribute | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [WebTools] WTP Source Editing | Reporter: | Nick Sandonato <nsand.dev> | ||||||
| Component: | wst.html | Assignee: | Nick Sandonato <nsand.dev> | ||||||
| Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | QA Contact: | Nick Sandonato <nsand.dev> | ||||||
| Severity: | normal | ||||||||
| Priority: | P3 | CC: | david_williams, thatnitind | ||||||
| Version: | 3.2.3 | Flags: | david_williams:
pmc_approved+
nsand.dev: pmc_approved? (raghunathan.srinivasan) nsand.dev: pmc_approved? (naci.dai) nsand.dev: pmc_approved? (deboer) nsand.dev: pmc_approved? (neil.hauge) nsand.dev: pmc_approved? (kaloyan) thatnitind: review+ |
||||||
| Target Milestone: | 3.2.3 | ||||||||
| Hardware: | PC | ||||||||
| OS: | Windows XP | ||||||||
| Whiteboard: | PMC_approved | ||||||||
| Attachments: |
|
||||||||
|
Description
Nick Sandonato
Created attachment 187024 [details]
patch
Added the new "number" string value. The previous ATTR_VALUE_NUMBER looks like it was associated with <li>, but I couldn't find references to it anywhere. I created a new constant to play it safe.
* Explain why you believe this is a stop-ship defect. Or, if it is a "hotbug" (requested by an adopter) please document it as such. Correct markup is generating confusing error markers due to improper content model values. We need to make sure we're consistent with the HTML5 spec in order to avoid confusion. * Is there a work-around? If so, why do you believe the work-around is insufficient? No. * How has the fix been tested? Is there a test case attached to the bugzilla record? Has a JUnit Test been added? Adhoc testing. Furthermore, a unit test has been added. * Give a brief technical overview. Who has reviewed this fix? The content model will now correctly add "number" as a value for the input element's type attribute. Nitin has reviewed the fix. * What is the risk associated with this fix? Very low. Swapping out an incorrect attribute value that was probably never used in the first place (since it was unlikely people were understanding "1" to be a valid type). Created attachment 187064 [details]
junit
Additional junit for the change.
Thanks for the quick review. Code released. |