You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to j-users@xerces.apache.org by "K. Ari Krupnikov" <ar...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> on 2001/04/16 17:07:34 UTC
[Fwd: DocumentType().getEntities() - readonly?]
I posted this message on www-dom@w3.org today:
> "The DOM Level 2 does not support editing entities, therefore entities
> cannot be altered in any way."
>
> Should NO_MODIFICATION_ALLOWED be thrown by
> DocumentType().getEntities().setNamedItem() et al?
Xerces will happily removeNamedItem() from DocumentType().getEntities().
Is this the correct implementation of the Rec?
Ari.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: xerces-j-user-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: xerces-j-user-help@xml.apache.org
Re: [Fwd: DocumentType().getEntities() - readonly?]
Posted by "K. Ari Krupnikov" <ar...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>.
Elena Litani wrote:
>
> kari@cogsci.ed.ac.uk wrote:
> >
> > I posted this message on www-dom@w3.org today:
> >
> > > "The DOM Level 2 does not support editing entities, therefore entities
> > > cannot be altered in any way."
> > >
> > > Should NO_MODIFICATION_ALLOWED be thrown by
> > > DocumentType().getEntities().setNamedItem() et al?
> >
> > Xerces will happily removeNamedItem() from DocumentType().getEntities().
> > Is this the correct implementation of the Rec?
> No. :)
> The fix is in CVS.
>
What do you know,
Joseph Kesselman wrote:
>
> >Should NO_MODIFICATION_ALLOWED be thrown by
> >DocumentType().getEntities().setNamedItem() et al?
>
> Note "does not support" rather than "forbids". We were deliberately a bit
> fuzzy on that because it's reasonably likely that Level 3 DOMs will permit
> this operation as part of the schema/CM support, and some Level 2 DOM
> implementations might want to nonportably extend the DOM API to permit it
> as a stopgap mesure.
>
> If you're implementing a strict Level 2 DOM which does forbid altering
> entities, I'd certainly say NO_MODIFICATION_ERROR was the right response to
> this operation.
>
> (Note that if you're interested in the extension, you should be aware that
> there are some ugly issues regarding attribute normalization, namespace
> binding, and the like which would have to be dealt with. Which is one
> reason we didn't address this in DOM Level 2 or earlier -- we didn't feel
> we had good answers for those questions at that time.)
Ari.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: xerces-j-user-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: xerces-j-user-help@xml.apache.org
Re: [Fwd: DocumentType().getEntities() - readonly?]
Posted by Elena Litani <li...@ca.ibm.com>.
kari@cogsci.ed.ac.uk wrote:
>
> I posted this message on www-dom@w3.org today:
>
> > "The DOM Level 2 does not support editing entities, therefore entities
> > cannot be altered in any way."
> >
> > Should NO_MODIFICATION_ALLOWED be thrown by
> > DocumentType().getEntities().setNamedItem() et al?
>
> Xerces will happily removeNamedItem() from DocumentType().getEntities().
> Is this the correct implementation of the Rec?
No. :)
The fix is in CVS.
Elena
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: xerces-j-user-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: xerces-j-user-help@xml.apache.org