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

(unknown charset) Re: namespace treatment, 2nd attempt

From: (unknown charset) Ray D. Whitmer <rayw@imall.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 11:12:53 -0700 (MST)
To: (unknown charset) Dieter Köhler <dieter.koehler@ppp.uni-bamberg.de>
cc: (unknown charset) Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>, "www-dom@w3.org" <www-dom@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.05.10003091102060.9534-100000@sol.imall.com>
On Thu, 9 Mar 2000, Dieter [iso-8859-1] Köhler wrote:

>So if backwards compatibility at all is an unrealistic goal in this
>particular case, why not strive for a consistant DOM2, now?  That
>means to raise exceptions if namespace and non-namespace methods were
>used at the same namedNodeMap (a variant of a previous suggestion of
>mine).  In the example above using DOM1 together with DOM2 code would
>result in an exception.  Pure DOM1 code would still be able to work
>together with a DOM2 API, but a mixture would be forbidden.  That is
>the only amount of backwards compatibility within reach.

There is one important case of level 1 and level 2 mixture that does 
work in the current spec.

Consider the supplier of a browser or any other standard framework
which parses a document into a DOM without knowing what type of
application will operate on it -- level 1 or level 2.  A parser is 
in a superior position to most applications in that it can use level 
2 NS methods to easily create a tree that will satisfy either a 
level 2 or a level 1 application.  Either will be perfectly happy 
until post-parser DOM manipulations compromise the dual integrity,
and make the model only suitable to level 1 or level 2.

Ray Whitmer
ray@xmission.com
Received on Thursday, 9 March 2000 13:13:22 GMT

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