W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-dom-ts@w3.org > May 2001

SV: My iteration

From: Dimitris Dimitriadis <dimitris.dimitriadis@improve.se>
Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 14:50:13 +0200
Message-ID: <9F67DC27F4CCD311ABA600508B6A66A44A6629@VXOIMP1>
To: "'Freek de Bruijn'" <freek@x-hive.com>
Cc: "'www-dom-ts@w3.org'" <www-dom-ts@w3.org>
previousSibling is actually there, defined last among the attributes
appendChild is indeed given as a method
insertBefore is there, fifth definition in node-methods
nodeType and nodeValue swapped to keep alphabetical order

I include the updated file.

Thanks for the report.

/Dimitris


-----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
Från: Freek de Bruijn [mailto:freek@x-hive.com]
Skickat: den 29 maj 2001 10:07
Till: Dimitris Dimitriadis
Ämne: RE: My iteration


Hello Dimitris,

Just some small comments on the last version of the DTD you sent to the DOM
TS mailing list:
- node-attrs: previousSibling is missing?
- node-attrs: appendChild is a method, not an attribute?
- (minor) node-attrs: nodeType and nodeValue could be swapped to restore
alphabetical order?
- node-methods: insertBefore is missing?

I hope to have some time to read more of it, but maybe you could already
solve these small issues.

Regards, Freek
---
Freek de Bruijn
Software Engineer
X-Hive Corporation
e-mail: freek@x-hive.com
phone: +31 10 7108629
http://www.x-hive.com/

-----Original Message-----
From: www-dom-ts-request@w3.org [mailto:www-dom-ts-request@w3.org]On Behalf
Of Dimitris Dimitriadis
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2001 18:17
To: www-dom-ts@w3.org
Subject: SV: My iteration


Previous version of DTD now updated with

Document, DocumentFragment, DOMImplementation and extended.

Also, the source contains comments where things have been changed (newChild,
for example, is not a method on Element). In addition, duplicate attributes
have been removed (to the best of my knowledge).

Some of the issues that have been raised: there are ambigous contexts. Some
interfaces contain more attributed than they should (for example data).

One way to selve this is to not have them as required, but as implied with a
default value to none in the cases where they should not exist according to
the spec. Another could be to work primarily against the schema version and
use context dependence. We could also make the attribute group definitions
more granular in entity form and
include them in the way they should where applicable, but I feel this adds
complexity.

Please sanity check for tomorrow's telcon. I'll get back with an agenda for
tomorrow soon.

/Dimitris
Received on Tuesday, 29 May 2001 08:50:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:34:02 UTC