XML DOM support in Kjs (fwd)

Thu Sep 8 20:08:54 BST 2005

Hi David,

as the test case is indeed simple I suggest you file a report on
bugs.kde.org.

Thanks,

Harri.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 19:44:21 +0100
From: David Goodenough <david.goodenough at btconnect.com>
To: Harri Porten <porten at kde.org>
Subject: Re: XML DOM support in Kjs

Harri,

Well the testcase is remarkably simple:

<html>
	<head>
		<title>DOM exception test case</title>
		</head>
	<body>
		<script>
			var doc = document.implementation.createDocument( "", "", null);
			var root = doc.createElement( 'root');
			doc.appendChild( root);
			</script>
		<p>Text>
		</body>
	</html>

When it hits the doc.appendChild it will complain of a DOM Exception 3.

I get the same exception in both 3.3.2 and 3.4.2.  With Firefox the word
Text is displayed with no exception.

David

On Thursday 08 September 2005 16:24, you wrote:
> Hello David,
>
> On Thu, 8 Sep 2005, David Goodenough wrote:
> > Sarissa.createDomDocument function( ) {
> > 	return document.internal.createDocument( "", "", null);
> > 	}
>
> I don't think I'll be able to guess the problem from the lines you quoted.
> What we'd need is a simplified, standalone test case as wading through
> complete web pages or JS libraries is very time consuming. If you have
> such a test case it would be great if you'd file a bug report on
> bugs.kde.org.
>
> > Is this a case of Konqueror being picky and Firefox lax (I have found
> > a number of those) or am I (or Sarissa) doing it wrong (in which case
> > can you advise as to how I should do it) or is Konqueror (i.e.Kjs)
> > getting it wrong, in which case can you help in trying to get it fixed
> > (my C++ is a little rusty and I am not familiar with the Kjs
> > implementation).
>
> We can take over the C++ part once we have a simple HTML/JS test case. I
> suspect the problem not to be in the HTML JS bindings in KHTML rather than
> in KJS itself btw.
>
> > Also I notice in your Design notes document that there are some bits of
> > the W3C spec you are still implementing.
>
> Guess that comment is outdated. We should be mostly complete by now.
>
> >  You also mention extensions,
> > do you know of anyone working on an E4X extension (or would it require
> > changes to the base code).
>
> I've heard people talking about it but I don't know anyone who started a
> concrete implementation.
>
> Harri.