W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapi@w3.org > February 2008

Re: ElementTraversal comments

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 18:36:11 +0100
To: "Doug Schepers" <schepers@w3.org>
Cc: "Web API WG (public)" <public-webapi@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.t6466lgf64w2qv@annevk-t60.oslo.opera.com>

On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 17:27:01 +0100, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org> wrote:
> I've uploaded it to public CVS now [1].  I was having some trouble with  
> that last night.

Thanks!


>>>> * I don't understand "A User Agent may implement similar interfaces  
>>>> in other specifications, but such implementation is not required for  
>>>> conformance to this specification, if the User Agent is designed for  
>>>> a minimal code footprint." I suggest dropping this sentence.
>
> It can be implemented as a subset of functionality.  If others agree  
> with you, I will rework of remove the sentence in question, though.

Let me put it this way. What is a "similar interface"? Might it be better  
to state in the conformance criteria that this can be implemented as a  
standalone feature on top of an existing DOM implementation?


> I'm not sure how I can make it more clear without imposing undue  
> restrictions on UAs.

Well, it could be removed... How to implement "For the purpose of Element  
Traversal, an entity reference node which represents an element must be  
treated as an element node." is not clear to me. How would a test for this  
look like?


> There are only 5 attributes, and I describe them in the introduction (in  
> broad strokes), again (verbosely) in the interface description prose,  
> and again (tersely) in the IDL.  I find it hard to credit that they are  
> somehow unclear.

Probably true. I find it confusing by the way that the attributes are  
defined below the IDL, as their own sectons and that also other sections  
make some additional requirements that should already be clear from the  
other definitions. For instance, "Navigation must be irrespective of  
namespace" Why is that a conformance requirement? Should there be a  
similar statement that if the prefix differs, but the namespace is the  
same, or the prefix and the namespace differs it should also still work?  
The same goes for "This interface must be implemented on all elements,  
regardless of their namespace." as that already follows from requiring the  
ElementTraversal interface to be implemented on each object that  
implements the Element interface.


> I don't agree that changing the structure of the document would make it  
> more readable, and I think it would make it less discrete.

Ok.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Tuesday, 26 February 2008 17:31:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 26 February 2008 17:31:18 GMT