W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > html-tidy@w3.org > April to June 2001

RE: FW: Making HTML Tidy a supported library

From: Reitzel, Charlie <CReitzel@arrakisplanet.com>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 15:56:53 -0400
Message-ID: <B5C79DDBC655D311B6BD0008C7E64D76013C14FB@exchange.arrakisplanet.com>
To: "'Richard A. O'Keefe'" <ok@atlas.otago.ac.nz>
Cc: ablavier@wanadoo.fr, ac.quick@sympatico.ca, dforcier@macromedia.com, html-tidy@w3.org, info@sl-chat.de, derhoermi@gmx.net, teague@mailandnews.com
Hi Richard,

Have a look at my previous posting.  I'd be curious what you think.  My
basic thinking is that Tidy couldn't use a DOM, because the whole point of
Tidy is that you can throw all kinds of mal-formed slop at it and produce
nice clean code.  

But it seems to me that Tidy would be great to produce a DOM.  

Bjoern's approach of traversing the internal Tidy tree and emitting SAX
events seems like a good one in principle, but I wonder if you can
adequately capture HTML in SAX events (designed to present XML).  That said,
a Tidy-To-DOM filter seems like another great application for a Tidy

I look forward your article when it comes out.  Will you post a link?


-----Original Message-----
From: Richard A. O'Keefe [mailto:ok@atlas.otago.ac.nz]
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2001 7:43 PM
To: CReitzel@arrakisplanet.com; derhoermi@gmx.net;
Cc: ablavier@wanadoo.fr; ac.quick@sympatico.ca; dforcier@macromedia.com;
html-tidy@w3.org; info@sl-chat.de
Subject: Re: FW: Making HTML Tidy a supported library

Terry Teague <teague@mailandnews.com> wrote:
	I was waiting for a future DOM based Tidy to make 
	major architectural changes to my code.

Er, why would any sane programmer *WANT* a DOM-based Tidy?
The DOM may very possibly be a good way to expose a browser's internal
representation to a script, although I have very serious doubts about that,
but if there is a worse representation for actually *doing* anything with an
XML document I have yet to see it described in print.

I hope that my article about problems in the DOM will soon be available on
the Web; it's been accepted, reviewed, the contract's signed, and I just
have to clear up the reviewer's points.  Trouble is, the DOM has so _many_
problems that it's quite a big article.

Let me put it this way:  the fact that people prefer JDOM to the DOM says
really terrible things about DOM.
Received on Monday, 14 May 2001 15:57:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:38:50 UTC