- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 22:48:15 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
- CC:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3756 ------- Comment #15 from per@bothner.com 2006-09-25 22:48 ------- (In reply to comment #14) > but that wouldn't implement canonicalize. My point is: how could you tell? Unless you had a separate test-suite for canonicalization. Using the string value is an extreme and unlikely case, but some more subtle bug in the canonicalization mechanism could easily mask a real error. You mentioned you use a "customized variant" of deep-equal. A lazy implementor might use deep-equal, without remembering that it doesn't check namespace declarations or element/attribute prefixes or nested comments or nested processing instructions. Plus of course one might want to check that serialization works as expected. using a variant of deep-equal doesn't do that.
Received on Monday, 25 September 2006 22:48:21 UTC