- From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 15:29:14 +0100
- To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Cc: public-webapi@w3.org
On Feb 22, 2007, at 09:50, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: > I would suggest to remove "(the XML declaration)" since xmlEncoding is > not the XML declaration, and turning it into e.g. "(as derived from > the > XML declaration)" is unnecessarily long. The last sentence is not > really > appropriate for XML documents, first the requirement is essentially > im- > plied by the requirement that the result must be namespace well- > formed, > and there are other cases where the XML declaration is required, > e.g. if > the Document is an XML 1.1 document. I would suggest to remove > this, or > turn it into a non-normative note clearly indicating that this is just > one of many requirements. +1 to removing it. > I think there needs to be a node clearly stating that even if you try > to send a HTMLDocument, it will be serialized as if it were XML. Agreed. Does the XHTML namespace get added automagically? > It might also be worth to note that on sending, the implementation > takes > a snapshot of the document and subsequent modifications of the > Document > during async upload are not reflected in the result. Yes, that will certainly alleviate some confusion from users who think XML == DB. > The main flaw here however is that it may not be possible to meet the > requirement to create a ns well-formed document, for example, if it > contains a processing instruction whose data includes "?>"; it is not > possible to represent such a Document as an XML document. The draft > has > to address this case. I can't think of anything useful that the UA can do on its own there, I'd suggest throwing an exception (DOMError or some such). -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ RDF is like violence: if it doesn't work, use more!
Received on Wednesday, 28 February 2007 10:07:52 UTC