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 14:46:29 -0700
Message-ID: <37F92035.DA10A2F2@pacbell.net>
To: www-dom@w3.org
keshlam@us.ibm.com wrote:
> 
> So far, ASP syntax is the best argument I've heard for extending
> the node types.

Not really.  ASP is structurally not markup -- it's <%foo...%>
constructs, or equivalent, with text that doesn't need to obey
markup rules.  Or it was the last time I looked at it in detail.


> Parsing the content of a <script> _doesn't_ do it for me.

It's just an "Element" after all.  Maybe HTMLScriptElement.
Node type is ELEMENT_NODE.

 
> Re low-memory/large-document: Remember that the DOM is only an API;
> how the data is stored behind it is up to the implementation. There
> is room for cleverness and tradeoffs here. 

Not a whole lot of such room, though; the API has a bit too
much "stuff" in it.

- Dave
Received on Monday, 4 October 1999 17:47:39 GMT

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