W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-dom@w3.org > October to December 1997

Re: Comments and requests.

From: Lisa Rein <lisarein@finetuning.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 18:51:13 -0800
Message-ID: <3456A4A0.FF7057B3@finetuning.com>
To: Alexandre Rafalovitch <arafalov@socs.uts.EDU.AU>
CC: www-dom@w3.org
I think this kind of annotation could be very useful.  Much in the same way the
"Java Console" in Netscape provides us with a record of what classes didn't make
it etc.....it could be a very useful log for what code was "passed over"
....which code was "available" compared to what was actually "parsed"    ;-)

Alexandre Rafalovitch wrote:

> On Thu, 16 Oct 1997, Paul Grosso wrote:
>
> > At 21:27 1997 10 15 -0400, Alexandre Rafalovitch wrote:
> > >These are comments on DOM Level 1 document as of 9th of October draft.
> > >
> > >  Am I correct in understanding that comment node should be generated for
> > >  that and returned in getChildren() call, but not in getAttributes()
> > >  call. The alternative is to not represent in-tag comment in DOM. What
> > >  about error nodes. (I know they should not happen, but....)
> >
> > I don't really know what you mean by error nodes, but in general it may
> > not be possible to define a DOM on erroneous input.  Certainly, the input
> > must be good enough to model before we can define a document object model
> > for it.
> >
>
> What about the case when it is possible. For example, if you look at html
> source code with errors in Netscape, you would notice, it recovers from
> errors by ignoring part of the input (it is shown in different color).
> This way, you can see where was the error. In the same way an Error node
> would just contains text representation of skipped part and can be ignored
> by the application processor if not needed. Most probably it could happen
> on any level.
>
> Regards,
>   Alex.



Received on Monday, 27 October 1997 23:02:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 22 June 2012 06:13:44 GMT