W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-dom-ts@w3.org > March 2002

Re: Tests that depend on node being inserted for default attributes

From: Dimitris Dimitriadis <dimitris@ontologicon.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 23:29:24 +0100
Cc: Curt Arnold <carnold@houston.rr.com>, www-dom-ts@w3.org
To: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
Message-Id: <70D7245D-353F-11D6-BCCA-000393556882@ontologicon.com>
Thanks for the clarification

I indicated this in fewer words in my original post conatining the 
report from the DOM WG F2F.

It seems the DOM WG needn't discuss this again as the issue is resolved.


On Monday, March 11, 2002, at 11:04 , Philippe Le Hegaret wrote:

> On Fri, 2002-03-08 at 10:44, Curt Arnold wrote:
>> Mary Brady wrote:
>>> Did anyone try the suggestion of creating an internal dtd instead of
>> external?
>>> Will this fix the problem without requiring validation?
>> I would consider those as a distinct new tests.  We do not have clear 
>> enough
>> guidance from the WG to know if default attributes from an internal 
>> subset
>> should be considered "known" and therefore should be provided.
> The DOM specification does not require a validating XML processor,
> therefore:
> [[
> Non-validating processors are required to check only the document
> entity, including the entire internal DTD subset, for well-formedness.
> [Definition: While they are not required to check the document for
> validity, they are required to process all the declarations they read in
> the internal DTD subset and in any parameter entity that they read, up
> to the first reference to a parameter entity that they do not read; that
> is to say, they must use the information in those declarations to
> normalize attribute values, include the replacement text of internal
> entities, and supply default attribute values.] Except when
> standalone="yes", they must not process entity declarations or
> attribute-list declarations encountered after a reference to a parameter
> entity that is not read, since the entity may have contained overriding
> declarations.
> ]]
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-xml-20001006#proc-types
> With the following XML document:
> <?xml version='1.0'?>
> <!DOCTYPE foo [
>  <!ATTLIST foo
>     bar CDATA "my_default">
> ]>
> <foo/>
> if the DOM tree does not contain the default attribute, it could be an
> error from the XML processor and not necessarily from the DOM
> implementation, hence the resolution from the WG to suggest a warning in
> this case and not an error. If the foo attribute is present but its
> specified property is true, it is not an error either since the XML
> processor is not required to pass the "specified" information to the
> application.
>> We do know from the WG that they believed the existing tests 
>> over-reached
>> and tested behavior that was not always required.  However, they didn't
>> state the conditions under which the behavior was required.
> Even if the test suite has a way to determine if the underlying XML
> processor is validating or not, generating an error on the DOM
> implementation may be inappropriate if the default attribute is not
> there since it can be a problem with the XML processor. Now, if we have
> a way to ensure that the XML processor did the right thing underneath,
> then it is certainly an error. One solution would be to say in the
> documentation that the DOM test suite assumes that the XML processor is
> XML 1.0 conformant (and points them to the XML test suite). Therefore,
> not having the foo attribute would be an error.
>> If the behavior was never required, then the tests should be 
>> deprecated.
> The behavior was never required by the XML specification at the first
> place.
> Philippe
Received on Monday, 11 March 2002 17:29:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:34:04 UTC