W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-dom@w3.org > January to March 2000

Call for unified tree model

From: Nils Klarlund <klarlund@research.att.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 13:47:10 -0500 (EST)
To: "www-dom@w3.org" <www-dom@w3.org>
Cc: klarlund@research.att.com
Message-ID: <yqz2aelj8ms5.fsf@fish-ha.research.att.com>

Thanks for responding to my comments!

> No, it doesn't, so I guess we need to rewrite this sentence to make 
> the meaning clear. And thanks for reminding me about the 
> difference in treatment of text. To explain what the DOM currently 
> does, the sentences you quoted should be changed to something 
> like (with additions in []):
> "If there is no markup inside an element's content, the text is  
> contained in a single object implementing the Text interface that is 
> the only child of the element. If there is markup [in the element's 
> content, i.e. the element has mixed content], it is parsed into the 
> information items (elements, comments, etc. [, but not including 
> character-level information items]) and Text nodes that form the list 
> of children of the element."
> Does that make it clearer?

If you just say "markup", I think the formulation is right, although I
don't understand why the first case situation is not merely a special
case of the second one?  Also, there is another somewhat murky point:
the sequence of so-called "information items" that an element defines
may (or may not) contain "entity markers", which probably are related
to the question of whether entities are expanded or not (something
that's elaborated on elsewhere in DOM2); so you're probably not
painting the full picture here.

If you say "mixed content", no, then your formulation is not quite
right I believe.  This is because mixed content could be just
character data as a special case.

Received on Wednesday, 2 February 2000 15:35:13 UTC

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