W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-dom@w3.org > October to December 1998

Re: TBodies ...

From: John Cowan <cowan@locke.ccil.org>
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 1998 09:41:24 -0400
Message-ID: <361E1284.E79F2E55@locke.ccil.org>
To: DOM List <www-dom@w3.org>
CC: XML Dev <xml-dev@ic.ac.uk>
Don Park wrote:

>> In other words, should the *implict* <TBODY> in the above
>> HTML fragment tag be *explicitly* represented in the DOM?
> I didn't answer this question earlier because there is no clear anwer.
> 
> The DOM spec is very vague in this area.

SGML rules, however, are not.  An element with "O O" omissibility
*exists* whether its tags appear in the source or not.  Thus
every HTML-DOM must have HTML as the top-level element even if
there are no HTML tags.  The same rule applies to HEAD, BODY, and
TBODY.  (SGML weenies on XML-DEV: am I wrong?)

> Yes, I would like to assume that all table rows are inside table section
> elements.  But then I would also like to be able to add some custom elements
> or attributes into my document.
> 
> Perhaps what we need is a way to have two views of a Document.  A 'perfect
> world' view of the document for predictability and a 'anything goes' view of
> a document for flexibility.

I don't see this as a problem.  This is not about rejecting what is
there, but treating what does not appear as present.

-- 
John Cowan	http://www.ccil.org/~cowan		cowan@ccil.org
	You tollerday donsk?  N.  You tolkatiff scowegian?  Nn.
	You spigotty anglease?  Nnn.  You phonio saxo?  Nnnn.
		Clear all so!  'Tis a Jute.... (Finnegans Wake 16.5)
Received on Friday, 9 October 1998 09:41:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 22 June 2012 06:13:45 GMT