[XML-SIG] DOM test failures

[Sylvain Thenault]

On Fri, 14 Dec 2001, Martin v. Loewis wrote:

> > You are right, in the sense that the code violate the DOM2 spec, but I
> > think the code have the _big_ advantage to allow dom tree manipulations
> > without knowing if the dom tree have been created using the NS interface 
> > or not.
> 
> I think we must distinguish a number of use cases here:
> 
> - the DOM tree is created through an XML parser, through
>   xml.dom.ext.reader. I definitely agree that the user should be able
>   to use both NS and non-NS API afterwards. I also don't think this
>   would violate the DOM spec, since everything that the reader does
>   is out of scope of the spec, anyway.
> 
> - the application has created nodes explicitly through the DOM API.
>   In this case, the DOM mandates that .nodeName, .name are
>   synchronized with .localName and .prefix. The big advantage that
>   you see is mandated by the DOM.
> 
> - the application creates nodes through the level 1 API. The DOM
>   mandates that the level 2 attributes are all null, yet you claim
>   that they ought to be synchronized. In what way? And why is this
>   a big advantage? 
 
I think that having localName=nodeName and prefix=None when the
application creates nodes through the level 1 API is easier to handle for
applications which take DOM tree as input, without knowing how it have
been created or if it uses xmlns or not.

This is only my opinion about this pb, I won't claim this is what we have
to do ! (I also think that 'specification' is stronger than 'opinion' ;)

regards

-- 
Sylvain Thenault

  LOGILAB           http://www.logilab.org