W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > May 2008

Re: Terminology: "document"

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Fri, 9 May 2008 07:04:02 +0000 (UTC)
To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
Cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0805090702560.23610@hixie.dreamhostps.com>

On Wed, 3 Oct 2007, Henri Sivonen wrote:
> 
> The spec uses the word "document" both in an abstract sense and in the 
> sense of "DOM tree".
> 
> I suggest explicitly saying that "document" means "DOM tree" in most 
> cases. (For the benefit of those who look up things piecemeal in the 
> spec, to whom it isn't clear that the spec looks everything through 
> DOM-colored glasses and who assume general English meaning of words, 
> substituting "document" with "document tree", "DOM", "DOM tree" 
> throughout the spec might help, but this may not be worth the editorial 
> time. Adding one sentence under "Terminology" would be low-hanging 
> fruit, though.)
> 
> Furthermore, HTML 5 uses "XML document" to mean a DOM tree with the 
> HTMLness flag set to false whereas the XML spec uses "XML document" to 
> mean an stream of bytes that satisfies a particular format.

In general I've more recently tried to shy away from the generic term 
"document" unless the exact meaning isn't too important. Are there 
specific instances where the current text is ambiguous in a way that 
affects conformance requirements?

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Friday, 9 May 2008 07:04:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:17 GMT