W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-dom@w3.org > April to June 1998

Re: xxxML on top of, embedded in XML

From: Lauren Wood <lauren@sqwest.bc.ca>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 10:59:13 -0700
Message-Id: <199804301759.KAA00561@sqwest.bc.ca>
To: www-dom@w3.org
At 30/04/98 10:35 AM , Richard Cohn wrote:

>1. Suggestions for specification of a DOM for XML applications such as PGML
>and MathML. Does the working group expect that XML applications use the
>generic XML DOM specification or a specialization? My perhaps naive take is
>that the HTML DOM specification is one example of a specialization in that
>classes are defined that correspond to particular HTML elements and that
>these classes provide direct access to most element attributes. 

I would expect that specializations for particular DTDs would either (as
for HTML)
use the Core DOM as a base, or layer on top of the XML DOM if some
features such as entities are required. We should probably add some words 
explaining how we expect this to work to the specification.

>My current
>thinking is to leave the Document object as is, but to subclass Element.
>All document-wide but PGML-specific info would be tied to the root element.
>This is different from the HTML DOM but seems more general and more

The latest thinking, which has not yet been put into a public draft, is to
have HTMLDocument and XMLDocument. We do expect application-specific
stuff to be tied to the Document, but I guess this isn't strictly necessary.

>2. Supposing the answer to 1 is that a specialized DOM for PGML and other
>XML applications is expected, has thought been given to how to integrate
>multiple DOMs? 

Not yet, but it's an interesting question. We have talked a little about it
in light
of embedding XML in HTML, but probably not enough.

>It seems that MathML or PGML embedded in a more general XML
>document would be considered a DocumentFragment. 

Another interesting idea that we need to think about.

>This all should 'just
>work', but as the XML people have found with namespaces, there can be lots
>of interesting details to work out.

True. Thanks for bringing these questions up.


Received on Thursday, 30 April 1998 13:59:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 20 October 2015 10:46:03 UTC