- From: Curt Arnold <carnold@houston.rr.com>
- Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 03:31:34 -0600
- To: DOM mailing list <www-dom@w3.org>
On Dec 3, 2005, at 2:51 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > > > Hi Ray, > > On Dec 2, 2005, at 6:05 PM, Ray Whitmer wrote: > >> On Dec 2, 2005, at 12:26 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: >> >>> Firefox has the implicit adoption behavior. I am surprised you >>> don't know. >> >> Expect me to continue to respond to your ongoing jabs with my own >> questioning of your own knowledge, if I continue to respond at all. > > My apologies. I didn't mean this to come out as rude as I am sure > it sounded. I was also frustrated by the uniformly negative tone of > replies to my messages. I proposed errata to the spec originally > because Curt Arnold suggested this approach to compliance vs. > compatibility conflicts in the test suite(*). But now even he seems > critical of this approach. > > * - See e.g. http://bugzilla.opendarwin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4569 Curt Arnold in bug 4569: This may be another one to raise to the IG. The test as written is consistent with the Java implementations, the original NIST tests and my reading of the recommendation. However, I do not believe any browser raises the WRONG_DOCUMENT_ERR, though I'm not sure what they do in that situation. There may be a case for an errata to change the phrasing to "May be raised" based existing implementations with corresponding changes to the tests. --- Any disputes about the test suite go to the IG for resolution. The NIST tests and my reading of the spec said it was required and without direction from the IG, I would not modify the tests. However, if the IG said that I misread the recommendation, I would modify the test suite on their direction. I said "there may be a case", I didn't say there'd be a compelling case or I'd agree with it. You presented a case, most comments have been negative but I think everybody here is sympathetic with the problem, just not the proposed solution of changing the expected behavior. Unfortunately with the WG over, the process to come up with a better solution or dismiss the issue is uncertain. If WRONG_DOCUMENT_ERR is optional, we potentially open up another set of problems, since the spec writers (probably) and the test writers definitely did not consider the potential scenarios that could occur when a node is inserted in another document. Do we know that the current implementations that don't throw an exception implement the same behavior. Maybe one does an importNode type action and another does an adoptNode type of action. It would be reasonable to think that the original spec writers did not want to try to think through the issues that would be required to freely move nodes between documents and decided that the most expedient approach to make sure that implementations were consistent was to prohibit it. Alternative solutions have been suggested and I don't know if you've stated your thoughts on them. The ones that I remember off the top of my head were: A Note that describes were ECMAScript implementations generally deviate from the recommendation for compatibility with existing content. A configuration option in the browser that would allow the user (likely developer) to change between standard conformant and compatibility mode.
Received on Saturday, 3 December 2005 09:31:39 UTC