W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2008

Re: ISSUE-5 (Unexpanded Entities): Wording for the Treatment of Unexpanded Entity References and Entity Replacement Markup [Element Traversal]

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2008 00:18:45 +0200
To: Web Applications Working Group WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
Cc: public-webapps@w3.org
Message-ID: <8muq54lcf639ho46lc57lsbrjl93imh4o8@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>

* Web Applications Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>Simon Pieters suggests wording similar to HTML5, in
><http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapi/2008Feb/0191.html>.

That is not a technically valid solution (and that particular wording
does not, in fact, apply to the core node traversal interfaces, if you
implement, say, .nextSibling as if entities had been expanded, entities
have in fact been expanded).

Anne's proposed solution is not valid either, except when applied to
DOM Core, rescinding EntityReference nodes alltogether, as the issue is
about how to implement this interface if you do have EntityReference
nodes in the tree (or want your code to work whether or not you do).

By the way, I would strongly recommend to use Subject header values
no longer than ~50-60 bytes as longer ones trigger serious bugs in
many mail clients, and would also strongly recommend to wrap lines in
the body after ~70 characters.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ 
Received on Saturday, 21 June 2008 22:19:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:26 GMT