- From: David Brownell <david-b@pacbell.net>
- Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 01:01:04 -0800
- To: www-dom-ts@w3.org
[ this was supposed to be a 'reply all', sorry ] ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Brownell" <david-b@pacbell.net> To: "Curt Arnold" <carnold@houston.rr.com> Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 12:59 AM Subject: Re: Crimson 1.1.3 tests > > ca: The NIST/W3C DOM Test Suite stuff in the W3C CVS (see > > http://www.w3.org/dom/test). Requires Ant 1.4 (exactly) with Crimson > > replaced (sorry) with Xalan-J 2.1 (again exactly) and the corresponding > > Xerces to build, if you are interested. > > Curious. I found this stuff, but it built with Ant 1.4.1 and my existing > environment. That defaults to using GNUJAXP (for SAX and DOM) > and SAXON (for XSLT); there were no evident problems building. > > > > CA: Isn't done by most processors > > and may come as a surprise to even knowledgable practitioners. > > I can confirm that it came as a surprise to me to learn that those URIs > were NOT resolved ... I'd have expected Xerces (for one) to obey > the SAX specs in such basic respects. > > URI reporting through DOM has never been clearly specified, > so at least this knowledgeable practitioner was not surprised > by anything except an unrelated spec non-conformance ... :) > > > > [ca] Probably so you could serialize a document without having > > the system id's obviously mucked with. Probably a fair number > > of entity resolvers that examine the systemId would fail to work > > if the source document had a unexpectedly absolutized systemId. > > Of course, that is a consequence of using the systemId to perform > > publicId's role. > > An org.xml.sax.EntityResolver applies only to parsed entities. > But yes, if ya misuses System IDs ya gots to pay da price. > > > > I've removed the verbatim systemId assertions in the two tests in the DOM L1 > > Core suite (leaving an assertion that just checks if the filename fragments > > are the same) and changed the verbatim systemId assertions in the DOM L2 > > tests (main the import*.xml tests). > > Sounds right to me. > > - Dave > >
Received on Friday, 16 November 2001 04:02:46 UTC