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

Re: DOM L2 comments, various

From: David Brownell <david-b@pacbell.net>
Date: Mon, 04 Oct 1999 10:18:41 -0700
Message-ID: <37F8E171.8868563E@pacbell.net>
To: "Stephen R. Savitzky" <steve@rsv.ricoh.com>
Cc: www-dom@w3.org
"Stephen R. Savitzky" wrote:
> It's a problem -- there _has_ to be some extension mechanism defined in the
> spec. 

The spec allows anyone to define, for example, new interfaces (outside
of the org.w3c.* space) and implement them, as well as persuade others
to implement them.

I guess I don't see why element and attribute declarations would need
to look like DOM "Node" objects except for a JavaScript environment.
I've certainly written, and used, enough code where they're done without
using DOM "Node" objects, so it's not a necessity argument.  I can't
see much benefit coming from sibling/parent/owner navigation there.

I'm more sympathetic to defining new exception codes outside the range
of the types defined by W3C.

>	 The simplest thing would be to set aside for the implementation all
> values with the high-order bit set; these would map into the negative values
> in languages that don't have unsigned integers.

- Dave
Received on Monday, 4 October 1999 13:19:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 20 October 2015 10:46:06 UTC