Re: Tests that depend on node being inserted for default attributes

comments inlined

On Friday, March 8, 2002, at 05:41 , Curt Arnold wrote:

> Mary Brady wrote:
>> [mb] Have we asked the working group what should happen if the iterms 
>> were
>> represented as an internal subset?  I'd rather get a concrete answer 
>> and
> fix
>> the
>> problem than provide a work-around.
>
> I'd love to get a concrete, consise statement from the WG on this 
> matter,
> too.  I have raised it on this list, but I don't know if Dimitriadis has
> either taken it back to the WG or if he can clarify the existing 
> position
> from member confidential material.
>
[dd] In case the resolution is not clear, which I'll know as soon as the 
minutes become available, I'll take the issue up with the DOM WG again 
and report back to this list.

In any case, default attributes in a processed (known) DTD are to be 
present; in the internal subset case, having been processed, they should 
be in the DOM.

I thought this was clear from my March 2 post with the report from the 
DOM WG F2F, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-dom-
ts/2002Mar/0002.html. On rereading I understand that there is an issue 
with internal as opposed to external subsets.

> Might finally be time to fire up the bug tracker from our SF alter-ego 
> to
> keep track of open issues.
>
[dd] Are there any other issues that have not been promptly or 
satisfactorily discussed by the DOM WG?

> If default attribute nodes should be provided when for default 
> attributes in
> the internal subset, I would still recommend adding new tests for that
> behavior and leaving the existing tests as is.  Basically, creating an
> is_staff.xml (for internal subset) and is_ versions of the 9 tests.
>
>
>
> From: "Curt Arnold" <carnold@houston.rr.com>
> Date: Fri Mar 08, 2002  04:44:17  Europe/Stockholm
> To: <www-dom-ts@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: Tests that depend on node being inserted for default 
> attributes
>
> Mary Brady wrote:
> Did anyone try the suggestion of creating an internal dtd instead of
> external?
> Will this fix the problem without requiring validation?
>
> I would consider those as a distinct new tests.  We do not have clear 
> enough
> guidance from the WG to know if default attributes from an internal 
> subset
> should be considered "known" and therefore should be provided.
>
[dd] I think my comment above resolves this. HOwever, let me 
double-check.

> We do know from the WG that they believed the existing tests 
> over-reached
> and tested behavior that was not always required.  However, they didn't
> state the conditions under which the behavior was required.  If the 
> behavior
> was never required, then the tests should be deprecated.  By my 
> changes, I'm
> asserting my interpretation that the behavior is required when the 
> parser is
> validating since validation presupposed knowing the content of the DTD.
>
[dd] The issue, as I have understood it, is whether default attributes 
should be in the DOM, and this divides further into two cases, internal 
and external. Is that right? The resolution points toward your 
interpretation being correct (the 'when validated' clause allows for 
testing only internal or also external subsets).

> p.s. Marking the tests as requiring validation will only cause them to 
> be
> reported as Not Applicable to non-validating implementations.

Received on Friday, 8 March 2002 14:42:04 UTC