Talk:XML/DOM serialization: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
(→Attributes: Suppose so) |
m (moved Talk:DOM XML Serialization to Talk:XML/DOM serialization) |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
Shouldn't the task be extended such that the document contains at least one attribute? -- [[User:Wmeyer|Wmeyer]] 00:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC) |
Shouldn't the task be extended such that the document contains at least one attribute? -- [[User:Wmeyer|Wmeyer]] 00:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC) |
||
:Yes in principle, but it's a big round of breaking of existing examples to do. Is it that important? –[[User:Dkf|Donal Fellows]] 10:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC) |
:Yes in principle, but it's a big round of breaking of existing examples to do. Is it that important? –[[User:Dkf|Donal Fellows]] 10:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC) |
||
:: For scenarios like that, it makes more sense to create the "extended" version as a new task, deprecate this one, and forward-port as many examples as possible. (Do we have a deprecated task category? We're likely going to need one. ISTR creating a dep task template.) --[[User:Short Circuit|Michael Mol]] 20:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::I'm now convinced that it is probably not important enough to break examples or create a new task. Especially since [[XML Creation]] is a similar task that already deals with attributes. -- [[User:Wmeyer|Wmeyer]] 20:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC) |
|||
Latest revision as of 12:59, 6 February 2010
Which Equivalence?
When we produce XML, what degree of equivalence to the sample is required? According to which normalization rules should the equivalence be performed?
I ask because none of the language samples that describe what output they actually produce generate the exact text in the task description. —Dkf 08:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Attributes
Shouldn't the task be extended such that the document contains at least one attribute? -- Wmeyer 00:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yes in principle, but it's a big round of breaking of existing examples to do. Is it that important? –Donal Fellows 10:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- For scenarios like that, it makes more sense to create the "extended" version as a new task, deprecate this one, and forward-port as many examples as possible. (Do we have a deprecated task category? We're likely going to need one. ISTR creating a dep task template.) --Michael Mol 20:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm now convinced that it is probably not important enough to break examples or create a new task. Especially since XML Creation is a similar task that already deals with attributes. -- Wmeyer 20:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)