Re: ISSUE-5 (Unexpanded Entities): Wording for the Treatment of Unexpanded Entity References and Entity Replacement Markup [Element Traversal]

Hi, Bjoern and Anne-

Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote (on 6/21/08 6:18 PM):
> * Web Applications Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>>Simon Pieters suggests wording similar to HTML5, in
>><http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapi/2008Feb/0191.html>.
> 
> That is not a technically valid solution (and that particular wording
> does not, in fact, apply to the core node traversal interfaces, if you
> implement, say, .nextSibling as if entities had been expanded, entities
> have in fact been expanded).
> 
> Anne's proposed solution is not valid either, except when applied to
> DOM Core, rescinding EntityReference nodes alltogether, as the issue is
> about how to implement this interface if you do have EntityReference
> nodes in the tree (or want your code to work whether or not you do).

Having just researched the matter a bit more, I now have some improved 
wording that is more procedural, and makes fewer assumptions and 
impositions on the user agent.  I believe that this wording should 
satisfy Björn's concerns while producing the well-defined behavior that 
Anne wants:

"EntityReference nodes are not visible to the Element Traversal 
mechanism; if the tree-walker encounteres an EntityReference node, it 
descends into it without informing the caller, and processes any 
children as if they had been present at the place where the entity node 
was found."

If this does not satisfy either of you, please respond within two weeks, 
or sooner if possible.

Regards-
-Doug Schepers
W3C Team Contact, WebApps, SVG, and CDF

Received on Wednesday, 30 July 2008 07:01:46 UTC