Copyright © 2009 W3C® (MIT, ERCIM, Keio), All Rights Reserved. W3C liability, trademark, document use and software licensing rules apply.
This document addresses errors in the Element Traversal Specification Recommendation published on 22 December 2008. It records all errors that, at the time of this document’s publication, have solutions that have been approved by the Web Applications Working Group.
This document lists all corrections for the Element Traversal Specification Recommendation that have been approved by the Web Applications Working Group.
Each erratum is classified as markup, editorial or substantive. These categories are defined as follows:
These categories correspond to the first three correction classes in the W3C Process Document.
Each erratum has one of two statuses: proposed and normative. Proposed errata are those that have been accepted by the Working Group but which still need wider technical review and endorsement from the W3C. Normative errata are those that have been accepted by the Working Group and have had wider technical review and endorsement by the W3C. (See the Errata Management section of the W3C Process Document for details.)
Comments on the specification or these errata may be sent to public-webapps@w3.org, which is publicly archived.
There are currently no normative corrections.
| [E1] Java interface and IDL definition licensing problem | |
|---|---|
| Status | Proposed on 2009-02-03 |
| Category | Editorial |
| Reported by | Cameron McCormack |
| In reference to | |
| Comments | Cameron McCormack, Doug Schepers, Michael Glavassevich, Philippe Le Hégaret, Rigo Wenning (quoted) |
| Description |
Since an explicit statement to the contrary was not included, the Java interface and IDL definitions are licensed under the W3C Document License, which is not appropriate for reuse in certain open source projects. |
| Resolution |
The Java interface and IDL definitions should be licensed under the W3C Software License with the additional clause that the DOM specifications are published with. |
| Changes |
In http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-ElementTraversal-20081222/#sotd, replace: This document was produced under a group … with: This document is published under the W3C Document License. The bindings within this document are published under the W3C Software Copyright Notice and License. The software license requires "Notice of any changes or modifications to the files, including the date changes were made." Consequently, modified versions of the Element Traversal bindings must document that they do not conform to the W3C standard; in the case of the IDL definitions, the pragma prefix can no longer be 'w3c.org'; in the case of the Java language binding, the package names can no longer be in the 'org.w3c' package. This document was produced under a group … In http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-ElementTraversal-20081222/#idl, replace: A. IDL Definitions… with: A. IDL DefinitionsThe complete IDL definitions for Element Traversal are available at http://www.w3.org/2009/02/ElementTraversal-idl.zip. The IDL, including a description of each member of the interface, is listed below. … In http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-ElementTraversal-20081222/#java-binding, replace: C. Java Language Binding… with: C. Java Language BindingThe complete Java bindings for Element Traversal are available at http://www.w3.org/2009/02/ElementTraversal-java-binding.zip, and are also reproduced below. … |
| [S1] Feature String | |
|---|---|
| Status | Proposed on 2009-10-16 |
| Category | Substantive |
| Reported by | Michael Glavassevich |
| In reference to | |
| Comments | Michael Glavassevich |
| Description |
Since a features string for Element Traversal was not included, applications would have no standard way for selecting a DOMImplementation which supports Element Traversal or determining whether the DOMImplementation instance they already have supports it. |
| Resolution |
The Element Traversal specification should define a feature string. |
| Changes |
In http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-ElementTraversal-20081222/#conformance, replace: … A conforming implementation of this specification meets all requirements identified by the use of these terms, within the scope of its language bindings. with: … A conforming implementation of this specification meets all requirements identified by the use of these terms, within the scope of its language bindings. The interface defined within this specification is not mandatory for DOM support. A DOM application may use the |