If 'is' is not null and custom element definition not found, NotFoundError should be thrown

If 'is' is not null and custom element definition not found, NotFoundError should be thrown

This patch checks if the document.createElement dictionary 'is' attribute
is registered as a valid custom element type and throws NotFoundError
exception if not.
See https://dom.spec.whatwg.org/#dom-document-createelement, step 4.

BUG=661968

[Anton Obzhirov, 2016-11-07 15:27:01]

Description was changed from

==========
If 'is' is not null and custom element definition not found, NotFoundError
should be thrown

This patch checks if the document.createElement dictionary 'is' attribute
is registered as a valid custom element type and throws NotFoundError
exception if not.
See https://dom.spec.whatwg.org/#dom-document-createelement, step 4.

BUG=661968
==========

to

==========
If 'is' is not null and custom element definition not found, NotFoundError
should be thrown

This patch checks if the document.createElement dictionary 'is' attribute
is registered as a valid custom element type and throws NotFoundError
exception if not.
See https://dom.spec.whatwg.org/#dom-document-createelement, step 4.

BUG=661968
==========

[Anton Obzhirov, 2016-11-07 15:27:01]

a.obzhirov@samsung.com changed reviewers:
+ dominicc@chromium.org, haraken@chromium.org

[Anton Obzhirov, 2016-11-07 15:28:05]

Plz have a look.

[haraken, 2016-11-07 15:47:42]

On 2016/11/07 15:28:05, Anton Obzhirov wrote:
> Plz have a look.

(dominicc should be a better reviewer for this.)

[dominicc (has gone to gerrit), 2016-11-08 08:48:36]

https://codereview.chromium.org/2479243002/diff/1/third_party/WebKit/Source/c...
File third_party/WebKit/Source/core/dom/Document.cpp (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2479243002/diff/1/third_party/WebKit/Source/c...
third_party/WebKit/Source/core/dom/Document.cpp:685: String
getTypeExtension(Document* document,
I'm pretty sure this isn't how we should implement this. For example, step 4 is
also meant to use the local name in the lookup. Step 7 could use the custom
element definition and skip a lookup step that otherwise happens twice.

The existence of custom elements v0 does complicate things somewhat though :/

Could you send email to yurak with a pointer to this patch and work out the
details with her? She's working in this area, see eg
https://codereview.chromium.org/2477713003

[Anton Obzhirov, 2016-11-08 13:02:51]

On 2016/11/08 08:48:36, dominicc wrote:
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/2479243002/diff/1/third_party/WebKit/Source/c...
> File third_party/WebKit/Source/core/dom/Document.cpp (right):
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/2479243002/diff/1/third_party/WebKit/Source/c...
> third_party/WebKit/Source/core/dom/Document.cpp:685: String
> getTypeExtension(Document* document,
> I'm pretty sure this isn't how we should implement this. For example, step 4
is
> also meant to use the local name in the lookup. Step 7 could use the custom
> element definition and skip a lookup step that otherwise happens twice.
> 
> The existence of custom elements v0 does complicate things somewhat though :/
> 
> Could you send email to yurak with a pointer to this patch and work out the
> details with her? She's working in this area, see eg
> https://codereview.chromium.org/2477713003

Will do, thanks for checking

[dominicc (has gone to gerrit), 2016-11-16 02:46:41]

https://codereview.chromium.org/2479243002/diff/1/third_party/WebKit/Source/c...
File third_party/WebKit/Source/core/dom/Document.cpp (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2479243002/diff/1/third_party/WebKit/Source/c...
third_party/WebKit/Source/core/dom/Document.cpp:704: if
(document->registrationContext() &&
I need to see this patch based on top of yurak's patch. Sorry to ask you to slow
down, but it's hard to compute how these line up.

[Anton Obzhirov, 2016-11-16 10:52:59]

On 2016/11/16 02:46:41, dominicc wrote:
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/2479243002/diff/1/third_party/WebKit/Source/c...
> File third_party/WebKit/Source/core/dom/Document.cpp (right):
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/2479243002/diff/1/third_party/WebKit/Source/c...
> third_party/WebKit/Source/core/dom/Document.cpp:704: if
> (document->registrationContext() &&
> I need to see this patch based on top of yurak's patch. Sorry to ask you to
slow
> down, but it's hard to compute how these line up.

NP, I was waiting actually for his patch to be merged first to rebase/improve
this one.

[dominicc (has gone to gerrit), 2016-11-25 08:34:02]

Hi Anton! Could you take a look at crbug.com/666610 ?

[Anton Obzhirov, 2016-11-25 13:27:24]

On 2016/11/25 08:34:02, dominicc wrote:
> Hi Anton! Could you take a look at crbug.com/666610 ?
Yes, checking now, will update soon.

[Anton Obzhirov, 2016-11-26 01:39:20]

On 2016/11/25 13:27:24, Anton Obzhirov wrote:
> On 2016/11/25 08:34:02, dominicc wrote:
> > Hi Anton! Could you take a look at crbug.com/666610 ?
> Yes, checking now, will update soon.

I submitted a fix (https://codereview.chromium.org/2530243002/), plz have a
look.

[Anton Obzhirov, 2016-11-26 01:41:05]

On 2016/11/16 10:52:59, Anton Obzhirov wrote:
> On 2016/11/16 02:46:41, dominicc wrote:
> >
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/2479243002/diff/1/third_party/WebKit/Source/c...
> > File third_party/WebKit/Source/core/dom/Document.cpp (right):
> > 
> >
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/2479243002/diff/1/third_party/WebKit/Source/c...
> > third_party/WebKit/Source/core/dom/Document.cpp:704: if
> > (document->registrationContext() &&
> > I need to see this patch based on top of yurak's patch. Sorry to ask you to
> slow
> > down, but it's hard to compute how these line up.
> 
> NP, I was waiting actually for his patch to be merged first to rebase/improve
> this one.

Now since yurak's patch has been merged I will update my part.

[dominicc (has gone to gerrit), 2017-01-19 06:36:08]

On 2016/11/26 at 01:41:05, a.obzhirov wrote:
> On 2016/11/16 10:52:59, Anton Obzhirov wrote:
> > On 2016/11/16 02:46:41, dominicc wrote:
> > >
> >
https://codereview.chromium.org/2479243002/diff/1/third_party/WebKit/Source/c...
> > > File third_party/WebKit/Source/core/dom/Document.cpp (right):
> > > 
> > >
> >
https://codereview.chromium.org/2479243002/diff/1/third_party/WebKit/Source/c...
> > > third_party/WebKit/Source/core/dom/Document.cpp:704: if
> > > (document->registrationContext() &&
> > > I need to see this patch based on top of yurak's patch. Sorry to ask you
to
> > slow
> > > down, but it's hard to compute how these line up.
> > 
> > NP, I was waiting actually for his patch to be merged first to
rebase/improve
> > this one.
> 
> Now since yurak's patch has been merged I will update my part.

Great, ping when there is an update?

[Anton Obzhirov, 2017-01-19 17:06:12]

On 2017/01/19 06:36:08, dominicc wrote:
> On 2016/11/26 at 01:41:05, a.obzhirov wrote:
> > On 2016/11/16 10:52:59, Anton Obzhirov wrote:
> > > On 2016/11/16 02:46:41, dominicc wrote:
> > > >
> > >
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/2479243002/diff/1/third_party/WebKit/Source/c...
> > > > File third_party/WebKit/Source/core/dom/Document.cpp (right):
> > > > 
> > > >
> > >
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/2479243002/diff/1/third_party/WebKit/Source/c...
> > > > third_party/WebKit/Source/core/dom/Document.cpp:704: if
> > > > (document->registrationContext() &&
> > > > I need to see this patch based on top of yurak's patch. Sorry to ask you
> to
> > > slow
> > > > down, but it's hard to compute how these line up.
> > > 
> > > NP, I was waiting actually for his patch to be merged first to
> rebase/improve
> > > this one.
> > 
> > Now since yurak's patch has been merged I will update my part.
> 
> Great, ping when there is an update?

Left a comment in the bug, plz check.