W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-dom-ts@w3.org > February 2003

RE: key attribute missing in generated dtd

From: Jeroen van Rotterdam <jeroen@x-hive.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 14:36:21 +0100
Message-ID: <41D11F414A26E942912B7E7696DC8E227D0707@JAKARTA.xhive.archipel>
To: "Curt Arnold" <carnold@houston.rr.com>, <www-dom-ts@w3.org>

Thanks for the response,


> The listing of DocumentLS and DOMBuilder as potential values for 
> interface would suggest that you generated the DTD from a draft where 
> both interfaces had an "abort" method (which isn't the case 
> in the last 
> public draft).

That's correct I'm working with the latest (non-public) working draft. 
There are obvious reasons for that, we have an implementation of this
latest draft and
I don't want to rewrite my tests after a new publication.

> 
> Neither dom-to-dtd.xsl or dom-to-xsd.xsl is sufficiently 
> smart enough to 
> fabricate a common element definition from conflicting definitions of 
> the same method name.  It generates the element from one 
> (probably first 
> in document order in the combined spec) and assumes that any 
> other use 
> will be compatible.  When that isn't the case, you have to 
> suppress the 
> automatic generation and provide a hand-crafted element.  The 
> exclusion 
> of 'load' on line 240 of dom-to-dtd.xsl is an instance of 
> this effect. 
> (Related is a fixup in the dom?-combine.xsl that make the 
> argument names 
> of Element.getElementsByTagName and Document.getElementsByTagName 
> identical).
> 
> You might review whether both "abort" methods are needed or whether 
> their arguments could be synchronized.

Both are needed with different arguments

> 
> If you explicitly specify the interface attribute, the 
> test-to-xxx.xsl 
> transforms should not have a problem.

Ok, I will have a look at it.


jeroen

=====
X-Hive Corporation
Jeroen van Rotterdam, CEO
e-mail: jeroen@x-hive.com
phone: +31 10 2818080
http://www.x-hive.com
Received on Wednesday, 5 February 2003 08:36:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:34:06 UTC