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

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