Re: L3 Core comments

On Tue, 2003-07-08 at 09:05, Curt Arnold wrote:
> Some initial comments, more will follow.
> 
> Section 1.2.4:
> 
> The text describing DOMObject is a copy of the DOMUserData description.

Fixed.

> Section 1.3.1:
> 
> "typically using uppercase for element names and lowercase for attribute 
> names"
> 
> See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-dom/2003AprJun/0104.html.  
> The "typical" behavior in the L3 Core is contrary to DOM L2 HTML which 
> specifies that both attribute names and element names should be 
> uppercase which currently only Opera and Konqueror implement.  The best 
> solution I see is to issue an errata to L2 HTML specifying that 
> attribute should be lowercase.  Otherwise, this sentence should be 
> expanded to not appear to be recommending behavior contrary to L2 HTML.

(added on the Core issues list)

> Section 1.3.3:
> 
> "For example, applications may have to declare every namespace in use 
> when serializing a document"
> 
> This may be a holdover before L3 Load/Save with L/S, I do not believe 
> that you would have to add xmlns attributes for namespaces in use.

This is correct, but if an application wishes to serialize a document by
itself, the comment is still valid. So I would be in favor of leaving it
as is.

> "Note: Element.setAttributesNS(null...) put"
> 
> Should be "puts"
> 
> "The new methods, such as Document.createElementNS"
> 
> These methods were introduced in L2 Core and in this context would not 
> be "new"

Fixed.

> Section 1.3.5:
> 
> "are developing DOM extensions"
> 
> Is the tense correct.  I think that they "have developed" might be more 
> appropriate now.

Correct.

> Section 1.3.6:
> 
> "thus for versions "1.0", "2.0", "3.0"
> 
> There has been a bug on www-dom-ts to ask for clarification if 
> hasFeature("Core", "1.0") should return true since the L1 recommendation 
> only had "XML" and "HTML" features.  This sentence should reflect the 
> resolution of that issue.  At the end of the first paragraph of 1.4, 
> "1.0" is omitted which could be interpreted as supporting the "Core 
> didn't exist in L1" position.

The feature "Core" wasn't defined in "1.0". The text in DOM Level 2 Core
is indeed misleading and should not make any claims regarding
hasFeature("Core", "1.0"). The DOM Level 3 Core was changed as follows:
[[
For example, this specification defines the features "Core" and "XML",
and thus for the version "3.0". Versions "1.0" and "2.0" can also be
used for features defined in the corresponding DOM Levels.
]]

An erratum should be published soon for DOM Level 2.

Philippe

Received on Wednesday, 16 July 2003 13:52:25 UTC