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 16:36:40 -0400
To: jmackay@yahoo.com
cc: www-dom@w3.org
Message-ID: <85256800.007139BC.00@D51MTA03.pok.ibm.com>
>Many argued in vain against the use of NodeType to
>begin with. The argument was that it was redundant,
>since each node type was represented by a unique
>interface.

Not all languages support runtime type ID. nodeType is required by those that
don't.

Extending the exceptions doesn't bother me; that shouldn't break applications.
Encountering an unexpected/undefined node type seems more likely to cause
breakage in code that conforms to the DOM spec, and I'm still not really
comfortable with it. I'm willing to refrain from explicitly forbidding the use
of negative numbers for user-created nodes; I'm not convinced that we should
bless this use by mentioning it in the spec, since that places a requirement on
all application authors to recognize and ignore those nodes ... and the
semantics of ignoring them may be nontrivial.
______________________________________
Joe Kesselman  / IBM Research
Received on Monday, 4 October 1999 16:37:02 GMT

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