Elena Litani wrote: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > I posted this message on [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
