- From: Jeroen van Rotterdam <jeroen@x-hive.com>
- Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 14:36:21 +0100
- To: "Curt Arnold" <carnold@houston.rr.com>, <www-dom-ts@w3.org>
Thanks for the response, > The listing of DocumentLS and DOMBuilder as potential values for > interface would suggest that you generated the DTD from a draft where > both interfaces had an "abort" method (which isn't the case > in the last > public draft). That's correct I'm working with the latest (non-public) working draft. There are obvious reasons for that, we have an implementation of this latest draft and I don't want to rewrite my tests after a new publication. > > Neither dom-to-dtd.xsl or dom-to-xsd.xsl is sufficiently > smart enough to > fabricate a common element definition from conflicting definitions of > the same method name. It generates the element from one > (probably first > in document order in the combined spec) and assumes that any > other use > will be compatible. When that isn't the case, you have to > suppress the > automatic generation and provide a hand-crafted element. The > exclusion > of 'load' on line 240 of dom-to-dtd.xsl is an instance of > this effect. > (Related is a fixup in the dom?-combine.xsl that make the > argument names > of Element.getElementsByTagName and Document.getElementsByTagName > identical). > > You might review whether both "abort" methods are needed or whether > their arguments could be synchronized. Both are needed with different arguments > > If you explicitly specify the interface attribute, the > test-to-xxx.xsl > transforms should not have a problem. Ok, I will have a look at it. jeroen ===== X-Hive Corporation Jeroen van Rotterdam, CEO e-mail: jeroen@x-hive.com phone: +31 10 2818080 http://www.x-hive.com
Received on Wednesday, 5 February 2003 08:36:32 UTC