- From: Stephen R. Savitzky <steve@crc.ricoh.com>
- Date: 28 Jul 1998 14:45:36 -0700
- To: Mike Champion <mcc@arbortext.com>
- Cc: www-dom@w3.org
Mike Champion <mcc@arbortext.com> writes: > [I'll send a separate message proposing wording explaining why Atrribute nodes > should not have parents; this *is* under discussion by the WG] [wording deleted] > [In short, by insisting that DOM implementers always have a > DocumentFragment associated with a Node or subtree that has not yet been > put in a tree or has been cut out of a tree, we make it easier for users to > track and manipulate those nodes.] I would be willing to accept this ONLY if there were a way to determine whether a node was really an orphan without actually creating the ghost DocumentFragment. Otherwise it's actually more difficult to keep track of nodes that are presumably already in a NodeList or variable. I suppose it's not unreasonable for the node-creation operations on Document to create a DocumentFragment as a parent, but it would be useful in that case to have some way of reaching the new nodes from the Document. There are other ways of creating nodes, however: most languages have a "new" operator. Nodes created in that way will _not_ have an identifiable parent. -- Stephen R. Savitzky Chief Software Scientist, Ricoh Silicon Valley, Inc., <steve@rsv.ricoh.com> California Research Center voice: 650.496.5710 fax: 650.854.8740 URL: http://rsv.ricoh.com/~steve/ home: <steve@starport.com> URL: http://www.starport.com/people/steve/
Received on Tuesday, 28 July 1998 17:41:34 UTC