W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-dom@w3.org > July to September 1998

Re: Should Document.cloneNode() work in Level 1?

From: Stephen R. Savitzky <steve@crc.ricoh.com>
Date: 09 Sep 1998 11:45:02 -0700
To: keshlam@us.ibm.com
Cc: www-dom@w3.org
Message-ID: <qcogsp86s1.fsf@gelion.crc.ricoh.com>
keshlam@us.ibm.com writes:

> John Cowan asks:
> >Am I missing something?
> No, you've accurately described what has to be done in order to deep-clone
> a Document.
>      "For each Node, invoke the proper createXXX factory method on the new
>       Document and copy all the (IDL) attributes: then insert it into place
>       in the new tree"

There's more.  The problem is that some of the Node's might be instances of
some (possibly local) _subclass_ and may contain information which cannot be
correctly copied by any of the public createXXX methods.

> That's a significant amount of additional code which in Level 1 would exist
> _only_ to support Document.cloneNode(). It could be argued that, given
> Level 1's decision not to handle the more general uses of this logic,
> implementing it for this one specific case is less reasonable than
> declining to support cloning of Documents would be.

I think it would be a tragic mistake if it was not possible to copy a
document, or to copy a node from one document to another, using Level 1.
That's the kind of omission that would seriously impact the credibility of
the specification (not to mention its usefullness).

 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 Wednesday, 9 September 1998 14:38:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 20 October 2015 10:46:04 UTC