James Teh [:Jamie] Reporter
	Description • 10 years ago

Str:
1. Open the following URL: data:text/html,<ul><li style="list-style: none;">test</li></ul>
2. Examine the text for the list item accessible.
Expected: "test"
Actual: " test"

It makes sense that a space should be exposed after the prefix (e.g. bullet) if there is one (which wasn't the case before Firefox 32). However, if there is no prefix, a space shouldn't be exposed. This worked as expected in Firefox 32 (no space if no prefix), but regressed in Firefox 33.

This is causing spurious blank lines to appear in NVDA browse mode with screen layout disabled.
Related NVDA issue ticket: http://community.nvda-project.org/ticket/4568

	Marco Zehe (:MarcoZ)
	Comment 1 • 10 years ago

Most likely a regression from bug 1013160. xidorn, could you take a look, please?

	Marco Zehe (:MarcoZ)
	Comment 3 • 10 years ago

Comment on attachment 8510878 [details] [diff] [review]
patch

Stealing review from Surkov. I ran with this patch and can confirm the fix. Also ran the a11y test suite and it passes. Thanks for this quick patch!

	Xidorn Quan [:xidorn] UTC+11 Assignee
	Comment 4 • 10 years ago

BTW, should we uplift this patch?

	Xidorn Quan [:xidorn] UTC+11 Assignee
	Comment 5 • 10 years ago

https://treeherder.mozilla.org/ui/#/jobs?repo=try&revision=65a99b37f679

	Marco Zehe (:MarcoZ)
	Comment 6 • 10 years ago

(In reply to Xidorn Quan [:xidorn] (UTC+11) from comment #4)
> BTW, should we uplift this patch?

We can try, at least for Aurora, so the fix gets in the hands of end users sooner. I am not sure what the policy is for beta, since this will have been broken in two consecutive releases (32 and 33). But you can request approval anyway. I've set the Affected flags accordingly.

	Xidorn Quan [:xidorn] UTC+11 Assignee
	Comment 7 • 10 years ago

(In reply to Marco Zehe (:MarcoZ) from comment #6)
> (In reply to Xidorn Quan [:xidorn] (UTC+11) from comment #4)
> > BTW, should we uplift this patch?
> 
> We can try, at least for Aurora, so the fix gets in the hands of end users
> sooner. I am not sure what the policy is for beta, since this will have been
> broken in two consecutive releases (32 and 33). But you can request approval
> anyway. I've set the Affected flags accordingly.

Actually, I think it is a regression of bug 966166, not of bug 1013160. Hence it doesn't affect 32.

	James Teh [:Jamie] Reporter
	Comment 8 • 10 years ago

It works as expected in Firefox 32.

	Marco Zehe (:MarcoZ)
	Comment 9 • 10 years ago

OK, so the flags are correct above. Yeah, request approval for Aurora and beta once this lands on m-c and we'll see where it goes.

	Carsten Book [:Tomcat]
	Comment 10 • 10 years ago

https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/c72e16da125b

	Wes Kocher (:KWierso) (Not reading bugmail; email directly if needed)
	Comment 11 • 10 years ago

https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/c72e16da125b

	Xidorn Quan [:xidorn] UTC+11 Assignee
	Comment 12 • 10 years ago

Comment on attachment 8510878 [details] [diff] [review]
patch

Approval Request Comment
[Feature/regressing bug #]: bug 966166
[User impact if declined]: As described in comment 0
[Describe test coverage new/current, TBPL]: Add one test in mochitest a11y
[Risks and why]: no risk AFAIK
[String/UUID change made/needed]:

	Lawrence Mandel [:lmandel] (use needinfo)
	Comment 13 • 10 years ago

Comment on attachment 8510878 [details] [diff] [review]
patch

Beta+
Aurora+

	Ryan VanderMeulen [:RyanVM]
	Comment 14 • 10 years ago

https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-aurora/rev/1b0cb783df31
https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-beta/rev/2e54d90546ce