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

RE: SourceForge Project Approved

From: <Valeri.Atamaniouk@nokia.com>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 10:41:59 +0300
Message-ID: <DFC7E257BE53D4118A5400508B691A0001A8FF9F@eseis14nok>
To: html-tidy@w3.org

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Richard A. O'Keefe [mailto:ok@atlas.otago.ac.nz]
> Sent: 23 May 2001 01:37
> To: Valeri.Atamaniouk@nokia.com; html-tidy@w3.org
> Subject: RE: SourceForge Project Approved
> 
> 
> Valeri.Atamaniouk@nokia.com wrote:
> 	What about DOM core level 1 implementation? Actually 
> tidy has it's
> 	proprietary DOM tree but _may_ be it would be better to 
> implement a standard
> 	one? Tidy then could be splitted into following parts: 
> DOM tree building
> 	(input), DOM tree optimisation, DOM tree saving.
> 	
> No.  It would be a lot of work to make a good program *worse*.
> Remember:  the DOM was designed to provide scripting 
> languages (Java and
> Javascript) with access to the data structure used by a web 
> browser (but
> not TOO much access).  It may well be adequate for that task. 
>  It falls
> between two stools:  it forces far too much accidental detail 
> about the
> source form on your notice to be anything like convenient for 
> structure-
> controlled applications, but it hides far too much about the 
> source form
> to be really effective for markup-sensitive applications.  In my own
> XML-in-C work, I have a data structure that takes LESS THAN HALF the
> memory that is forced by the W3C DOM spec (if the required 
> operations are
> to be even halfway reasonable).  Finally, consider the fact 
> that the DOM
> was designed for programming languages that have
>  - immutable strings
>  - automatic storage reclamation
>  - exceptions
> NONE of which applies to C.  There isn't the slightest trace 
> of any suggestion
> in the DOM specification (or any document I could find in the 
> public areas of
> the W3C site) that suggests how you might reasonably map the 
> W3C DOM into a
> language like C.

In general I agree with you :). But also what prevents you from creating all
those fine things in C :). DOM do not make any limits on implementation, and
it is possible to implement strings, storage reclamation & exceptions. As
far as I understand the last two would be really usefull as definitevely
improve performance (exit(2) is not an appropriate solution for library
function :)).

> The next time someone suggests that Tidy should use the W3C DOM, let's
> require them to implement, oh, one of the W3C suggestions:
>     change <I>...</I> to <EM>...</EM>
>        and <B>...</B> to <STRONG>...</STRONG>
> in both the W3C DOM and Tidy's data structure, and see 
> whether they still
> think it would be a good idea.  If they do, then demand that 
> they do it.

Agreed again. But regarding DOM implementation is limits only the _minimal_
functionality. You may provide you own as well.

But anyway your arguments seem good for me. But I still think that automatic
storage reclamation and exception 'emulation' (via setjmp/longjump) would be
really usefull.

BR
VA
Received on Wednesday, 23 May 2001 04:40:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 April 2012 06:13:45 GMT