W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-dom@w3.org > July to September 1999

Re: New DOM Level 2 Working Draft

From: Stephen R. Savitzky <steve@rsv.ricoh.com>
Date: 27 Sep 1999 10:56:09 -0700
To: David Brownell <david-b@pacbell.net>
Cc: www-dom@w3.org
Message-ID: <qcbtaoutl2.fsf@congo.crc.ricoh.com>
David Brownell <david-b@pacbell.net> writes:

> "Stephen R. Savitzky" wrote:
> > 
> > 	[ re Attr.ownerElement ]
> >
> > So why not just use parentNode like everything else does?  I was under the
> > impression that the reason for making parentNode return null from an Attr
> > was so that attribute nodes that are defined with default values in the DTD
> > can be shared among all the elements that use them.
> It shouldn't be "parent" since attributes aren't children and you
> can't enumerate them like children.  Were they ducks, they'd quack;
> but they don't ...
> Yes, I certainly did expect (way back when) that Attr values would
> be sharable.  But somehow the L1 spec got a rule that precluded that,
> by requiring INUSE_ATTRIBUTE_ERR to be reported.  So now we're stuck
> with nonsharable attributes ... this L2 change is just making implicit
> state explicit, making the best of a not so good situation (IMHO).

You could (and almost certainly ought to) rescue sharable attributes by
allowing (or, better, requiring!) attributes defined in the DTD to return
null from ownerElement.  They would still be ``in use'' but not by an

> > Support for DTD's was on the list for Level 2, too; I'm not holding my
> > breath.
> It recently dawned on me that the basic reason I find the "DocumentType"
> support in DOM (L1 and L2) to be useless is that it exposes no "Type"
> information whatsoever!
> The notation (and unparsed entity) stuff needs to be used in conjunction
> with attribute typing information -- which isn't available.  And the most
> powerful typing facility, content models, is likewise hidden.

This stuff WAS in the earliest drafts of the DOM.  So were a lot of other
useful things.  I'm especially annoyed about the fact that a Notation node
exists, but is completely useless because you can't get the notion of an

> Oh well ... I was just amused to notice what seems to be the root of the
> problem (a "Type" class with no type info); maybe I'm too easily amused.

Or too hard to annoy.

Stephen R. Savitzky  <steve@rsv.ricoh.com>  <http://rsv.ricoh.com/~steve/>
Quote of the month:  Death is nature's way of telling you to slow down.
Chief Software Scientist, Ricoh Silicon Valley, Inc. Calif. Research Center
 voice: 650.496.5710  front desk: 650.496.5700  fax: 650.854.8740 
  home: <steve@theStarport.org> URL: http://theStarport.org/people/steve/
Received on Monday, 27 September 1999 13:56:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 20 October 2015 10:46:05 UTC