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

Re: minor typos in CR-DOM-Level-2-19991210

From: Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 22:02:00 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <38AB64A1.EB9758F0@us.ibm.com>
To: Susan Lesch <susan@textet.com>
Cc: www-dom@w3.org, w3t-comm@w3.org
Here is some feedback on parts I've looked at.

Susan Lesch wrote:

> introduction.html - What the Document Object Model is par. 2
> "...In the DOM, documents have a logical structure which is
>      very much like a tree; to be more precise, it is like a
>      "forest" or "grove", which can contain more than one tree."
> [What is "it"? The DOM, a document, or a structure? I would replace
> "it" with a noun (probably document).]

It's the logical structure. What about simply:

  In the DOM, documents have a logical structure which is
  very much like a tree; to be more precise, which is like a
  "forest" or "grove", which can contain more than one tree."

?

> 1.1.7 par. 2
> naively.
> natively.

Actually this one really is naively.

> 1.2 Document - createElement and Interface Element - tagName
> canonical uppercase form
> [I'm not certain uppercase is ever canonical.]

Well, what we meant is that for HTML, uppercase is the canonical form in
the DOM. I guess your question means we failed to make that clear.


> Document - createProcessingInstruction - NOT_SUPPORTED_ERR
> [I believe HTML can include the style PI.]

In theory HTML is an SGML application and any SGML constructs could be
included in an HTML document. In practice most browsers don't know
anything about SGML though. So, as far as the DOM is concerned, XHTML
can, since it's XML, but HTML cannot.

> "...Two nodes are deeply equivalent if they are equivalent,
>      the child node lists are equivalent are equivalent as
>      NodeList objects, and the pairs of equivalent attributes
>      must in fact be deeply equivalent."
> [Too many "equivalents"? Not sure, but could read:]
>      Two nodes are deeply equivalent if they are equivalent,
>      the child node lists are equivalent NodeList objects, and
>      the pairs of attributes are equivalent.

Hmm, I'm not sure about that one. I agree this text is bogus but I think
you're going too far. Maybe the following would be correct. I'll need to
check with the WG on that one.

      Two nodes are deeply equivalent if they are equivalent,
      their child node lists are equivalent NodeList objects, and
      their attributes are [deeply?] equivalent.


Well, thank you very much for this careful review!
-- 
Arnaud  Le Hors - IBM Cupertino, XML Technology Group
Received on Thursday, 17 February 2000 08:45:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 22 June 2012 06:13:47 GMT