W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapi@w3.org > August 2007

Re: Fwd: Implementing HTMLDocument on all Documents (detailed review of the DOM)

From: Simon Pieters <zcorpan@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 19:10:16 +0200
To: "Bjoern Hoehrmann" <derhoermi@gmx.net>, "Charles McCathieNevile" <chaals@opera.com>
Cc: "Web API public" <public-webapi@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.txe5ze2m7a8kvn@hp-a0a83fcd39d2>

On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 18:36:16 +0200, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>  
wrote:

> As for the specific issue:
>
>> We're not happy with implementing the HTMLDocument interface on all
>> Document objects. It will affect all other types of documents and the
>> naming of their members in the future, and any additions to HTMLDocument
>> in the future becomes risky because it might break non-HTML documents.
>
> The same is true for any interface that Document objects implement,
> like those in the DOM Events or DOM Traversal specifications. While
> I could readily agree that implementing HTMLDocument on all Document
> objects might not be a good idea, I have a hard time seeing how:
>
>> We'd rather have the members of HTMLDocument that are useful for all  
>> types
>> of documents to be moved to the Document interface. This would probably  
>> be:
>
> would be any kind of improvement. You would have to explain why they
> need to be on Document rather than on a DocumentWithUsefulStuff inter-
> face. Clearly adding them to Document would make implementers who do
> not and do not plan to implement HTMLDocument anywhere at all unhappy
> (important reasons being that they are poorly designed and depend on
> not particularily common features like interactivity).

Indeed, I forgot to say this in my initial email. See:

    http://www.w3.org/mid/op.txesk51widj3kv@hp-a0a83fcd39d2

-- 
Simon Pieters
Received on Tuesday, 21 August 2007 17:10:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:18:58 GMT