harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Miguel Montes" <miguel.mon...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [classlib][html] Differences with RI
Date Tue, 26 Sep 2006 12:25:41 GMT
On 9/25/06, Paulex Yang <paulex.yang@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Miguel Montes wrote:
> > Hi,
> > I fllled several JIRA issues more than three weeks ago, but they are
> > still
> > unassigned. (HARMONY-1272, 1349, 1350, 1395). We are working in the
> > parser,
> > and there are some issues that should be solved, such as the structure
> of
> > ContentModel.
> I'd like to look at patches for 1349 and 1350 today, but 1395 is a
> contribution, so probably it needs Geir to raise a voting on it. And
> anyone interests to provide a patch for 1272?


I can provide the patch for 1272, but I was looking for some discussion
about the issue. Changing the content model changes how the DTD is stored,
and affects, for instance the contribution in 1395.
I think our representation of a content model should be the same as the
representation used in the RI, but i would like to hear other opinions.
If there aren't objections to this, I can post the patch for 1272, as well
as the modifications to 1395. That would be the binary representations
(bdtds) of the HTML 3.2 and HTML 4.01 DTDs.


> I would like to hear other people thoughts about this, particularly those
> > from the developers of the existing javax.swing.text.html.parser code
> >
> > Regards
> > Miguel Montes
> >
> > On 8/23/06, Alexey Petrenko <alexey.a.petrenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> I think that filing JIRA issue is right way :)
> >>
> >> 2006/8/23, Miguel Montes <miguel.montes@gmail.com>:
> >> > Hi:
> >> > We have found several differences between Harmony's implementation of
> >> > j.s.t.h.parser and the RI. I'm not sure if these should be reported
> >> > individually as JIRA issues, or should be discussed here.
> >> >
> >> > For instance, in j.s.t.h.p.Entity, the RI. encodes isParameter and
> >> isGeneral
> >> > in the type, which is a public field, while the current
> implementation
> >> in
> >> > Harmony uses two boolean fields. So, the value of a public field is
> >> > different in both implementations.
> >> >
> >> > Another case:
> >> > ContentModel:
> >> >
> >> > The method first() should return the element that must be the first
> >> element
> >> > to appear in a ContentModel. If it's not unique, the RI returns null.
> >> For
> >> > instance, for the following ContentModel:
> >> >
> >> > TITLE & ISINDEX? & BASE?
> >> >
> >> > Any of those elements could appear at the beggining of a valid
> >> matching
> >> > expression. So, the method first should return null, because there is
> >> not a
> >> > single element that could be considered as the unique one that can
> >> appear at
> >> > the head of a matching expression. Nevertheless, for this example (as
> >> for
> >> > some others), HARMONY-948 returned a value. For this example, a BASE
> >> value
> >> > was obtained.
> >> >
> >> > There are several more. Should we post them as separate JIRA issues,
> o
> >> as
> >> > one big issue, with the suggeste patches?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Miguel Montes
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Alexey A. Petrenko
> >> Intel Middleware Products Division
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: harmony-dev-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Paulex Yang
> China Software Development Lab
> IBM
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: harmony-dev-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>


-- 
Miguel Montes

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message