- From: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@expway.fr>
- Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 16:38:07 +0200
- To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Cc: www-svg <www-svg@w3.org>
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 UTC