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

Re: TreeWalker.whatToShow

From: <keshlam@us.ibm.com>
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 15:18:43 -0500
To: www-dom@w3.org
Message-ID: <85256891.006F52DB.00@D51MTA03.pok.ibm.com>
>Thank you for posting the revision of the paragraph.  Nevertheless the
>solution it suggests does not satisfy me. <...>  If
>whatToShow exists in TreeWalkers for the reason of performance,
>it would be best, if it supports rejecting a whole branch of the tree.

Unfortunately that would defeat the use cases that whatToShow was designed
to handle, such as "hide the EntityReference nodes".

Unless we make the skip-versus-reject behavior of whatToShow
user-selectable, or provide a second field for whatToReject... but that
feels like scope creep to me.

You can write the desired filtering behavior today. The question is whether
the current behavior is excessively confusing even when documented.


>And finally, a suggestion for an additional attribute for the
>NodeIterator and TreeWalker interface:
>    filtered of type boolean

How would this differ from, eg, (NodeIterator.getFilter()!=null)?



______________________________________
Joe Kesselman  / IBM Research
Received on Saturday, 26 February 2000 15:16:09 GMT

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