W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-dom@w3.org > October to December 1999

Re: DOM L2 comments, various

From: <keshlam@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 12:23:42 -0400
To: www-dom@w3.org
Message-ID: <85256800.005A0F4A.00@D51MTA03.pok.ibm.com>
> 1.2     Document.importNode ... I'm rather uncomfortable with that
>         name "import" since that implies the same object is in use
>         (e.g. if I import something from Canada).  "copy" is the
>         appropriate word, and is even used in the documentation
>         more than once.  "import" suggests the wrong thing.

As the one originally responsible for that term, I see the objection... but I
don't think "copy" carries all the right connotations either. "Copy" could too
easily be a synonym for "clone", and I'd like the name to reflect the fact that
the new copy is presented in the context (and implementation) of the target
document. "Import" was the best verb I could find to express that distinction;
the data content (though not the nodes) _is_ imported, in some sense.

If someone can come up with a verb that expresses the retargeting effect while
overcoming David's objection about physical metaphors, I've no strong objection
to renaming it. If there isn't a really good alternative, I'd rather stick with
what we have; it expresses the most important part of the behavior.

(Statement of personal bias: The current name conveniently matches the prototype
I included in XML4J's DOM Level 1 implementation. Not surprising since I based
the original proposal on that prototype.)

______________________________________
Joe Kesselman  / IBM Research
Received on Monday, 4 October 1999 12:23:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 22 June 2012 06:13:46 GMT