W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > July 2006

Re: [SVGMobile12] script element processing

From: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@expway.fr>
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 16:38:07 +0200
Message-Id: <ACE678D9-D3D8-44D5-8A2B-DF754C559B2B@expway.fr>
Cc: www-svg <www-svg@w3.org>
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>

On Jul 21, 2006, at 15:40, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xbl-20060619/#conformance>:
>
>   This specification is defined in terms of the DOM. The language in
>   this specification assumes that the user agent expands all entity
>   references, and therefore not include entity reference nodes in the
>   DOM. If user agents do include entity reference nodes in the DOM,  
> then
>   user agents must handle them as if they were fully expanded when
>   implementing this specification. For example, if a requirement talks
>   about an element's child text nodes, then any text nodes that are
>   children of an entity reference that is a child of that element must
>   be used as well.

Duh, I searched for "EntityReference" and couldn't find anything,  
didn't think far enough.

> But http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2006Jan/0492 I'm happy
> the SVG Working Group is now able to recognize this as a problem...

I'm not at all convinced that the problem is the same, no. If I  
insert an EntityReference node as child of a script element I sure  
want its textual content to be taken into account by the script,  
especially since that's automatic and trouble free. If I use  
ElementTraversal, I expect the elements I get through it to have  
their parentNode be the element through which I got them...

The fact that some parsers may expand them and others not is DOM as  
usual.

-- 
Robin Berjon
    Senior Research Scientist
    Expway, http://expway.com/
Received on Friday, 21 July 2006 14:38:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:54:35 GMT