Re: Concerns regarding the W3 Document Object Model (DOM) Conformance Test Suites

> Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 12:11:44 +0100
> Cc: "'bclary@netscape.com'" <bclary@netscape.com>, "'www-dom-ts@w3.org'"
> <www-dom-ts@w3.org>
> To: "Arnold, Curt" <Curt.Arnold@hyprotech.com>
> From: Dimitris Dimitriadis <dimitris@ontologicon.com>
> Message-Id: <F4BBA0C2-2784-11D6-880D-000393556882@ontologicon.com>
> Subject: Re: Concerns regarding the W3 Document Object Model (DOM) Conform
>     ance Test Suites
> 
> Most of these issues are sure to be brought up at the upcoming DOM WG
> F2F meeting next week in Cannes. In them meantime, as I'm travelling
> (first back home, then to Cannes) please provide the list with issues so
> that I can take them up with the WG.
> 
> comments inlined
> 
> On Friday, February 22, 2002, at 02:47 , Arnold, Curt wrote:
> 

...


>>> In addition, several of the test documents use an external
>>> DTD and fall
>>> under the classification as standalone="no" documents since they use
>>> default attribute values, etc. See "Extensible Markup
>>> Language (XML) 1.0
>>> (Second Edition) Section 2.9.
>>> 
>>> Section 5.2 "Using XML Processes" states:
>>> 
>>> In bullet two:
>>> 
>>> <quote>
>>> For example, a non-validating processor may not normalize [p.29]
>>> attribute values, include [p.40] the replacement text of internal
>>> entities, or supply default attribute values [p.28], where doing so
>>> depends on having read declarations in external or parameter
>>> entities. </quote>
>>> 
>>> In the final paragraph of this section:
>>> 
>>> <quote>
>>> Applications which require facilities such as the use of default
>>> attributes or internal entities which are declared in
>>> external entities
>>> should use validating parsers.
>>> </quote>
>>> 
>>> Requiring the use of a validating Parser in the DOM TS is
>>> inappropriate
>>> since this is not required in the DOM Specifications themselves.
>> 
>> The test suite does not require the use of validating parsers.  Any test
>> that is only applicable to validating parsers can be marked so that it
>> omitted when run with a non-validating parser (or a parser that supports
>> validation but with it disabled).
>> 
>> There are many tests that depend on the reading of DTD's for default
>> attribute values.  The common interpretation has been that providing
>> default
>> attribute values is not optional even when the parser is not validating
>> and
>> many implementations pass these tests when not validating.  If the DOM
>> WG
>> states that that behavior is optional, then the tests that depended on
>> that
>> optional behavior can be marked as conditional.
>> 
> [dd] This is one of the issues that are sure to be brought up for
> clarification next week.


I am concerned about the following DOM2 core tests which appear to require
that the implementation use a validating parser since the tests assume that
the reading of external DTDs are supported:

 getAttributeNS01.html
 getElementByID01.html
 hasAttribute02.html
 hasAttributeNS04.html
 namespaceURI01.html
 removeAttributeNS02.html

In my opinion these tests should be made optional and marked as such, since
they effectively require a validating parser as described above.  Even if
some implementations have hacked default attribute values without a
validating parser, that is no reason to require such hacks of other
implementations.


I tried searching the www-dom-ts archives regarding the issue of requiring a
validating parser and/or default attribute values from external DTDs, and
this message (that I am replying to) appeared to be the latest on the
subject.

 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-dom-ts/2002Feb/0170.html

Was the issue brought up during the 2002 DOM WG Meeting in Cannes as [dd]
indicates, and if so, what was the resolution?

Or has this been discussed in a more recent thread?

Thanks,

Tantek

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tantek Çelik                                         tantek@cs.stanford.edu
Tasman Development Lead, Microsoft Corporation        tantekc@microsoft.com
Representative to W3C CSS and HTML working groups
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Received on Thursday, 26 June 2003 00:11:25 UTC