On 04/28/2017 07:21 PM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
No, not at all. Reporting a Java bug to Oracle is a lot of work and I
confess that we tend to "forget" reporting Java bugs to Oracle.
Understand. However, since the bug already exists, in a product they
have released, might it not be possible to submit some existing code?
They don't care. They really need a self-contained, small, compilable
Java program allowing them to *very* *very* easily reproduce the bug. A
policy that I fully agree with, even this may be a lot of work for the
Java programmer.
[ ... snip ...]
I think that the purpose of the reference to XML’s document production
is twofold:
Firstly, it clarifies that a srcdoc document does NOT have to be a XHTML
document. [... snip ...]
Secondly, the reference to the XML document production means that
elements must be well-formed, [... snip ...]
After reading all this, we'll almost certainly change our
implementation to stop checking the value of attribute @srcdoc. I
mean, you'll be able to type anything you want as the value of @srcdoc.
Per what the spec says, XML document production is an extra requirement
when @srcdoc occurs in an XML document.
This should be well sufficient for a program like XMLmind XML Editor
which don't claim to be an (X)HTML validator.
Validation seems off the mark: XXe is an XML editor, and thus able to
check for well-formedness. And, in reality, well-formedness seems to be
what the spec requires. Though it must be meant some kind of "a
posteriory well-formedness".
This change will probably not happen before we officially support
(X)HTML 5.1. (For now, we don't support (X)HTML 5.1, just (X)HTML 5.0.)
XXe currently breaks HTML 5.0 and HTML 5.1 equally much: HTML 5.1 adds a
code example which I could not find in HTML 5.0. However, being an
example, it doesn’t impact the implementation requirements. Thus you
cannot really justify postponing to deal with this issue by pointing to
lack of support for HTML 5.1. ;-)
Question: What do you think about the XML document production
requirement? Does it make sense? I ask because I am considering filing a
bug report against the HTML specification. Can you think of any current
XML parser where it makes sense? Thanks.
If iframe/@src may point to anything accepted by a Web browser no matter
whether the document containing the iframe is HTML or XHTML, then the
value of iframe/@srcdoc should also be anything accepted by a Web browser.
I don't know if what I'm saying is correct or not. Anyway, this feature
is very far from the core of our business (XMLmind XML Editor). We have
already spend too much time on this issue.
I now confirm that we'll completely remove all the checkings made on the
value of @srcdoc, no matter of what says the (X)HTML spec.
--
XMLmind XML Editor Support List
xmleditor-support@xmlmind.com
http://www.xmlmind.com/mailman/listinfo/xmleditor-support
