W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-dom@w3.org > April to June 2001

DOM 2 HTML

From: Chris Mannall <chris.mannall@hecubagames.com>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 11:10:40 +0100
Message-ID: <004901c0e370$a310e690$b2f57bc1@development>
To: <www-dom@w3.org>
Apologies if any/all of these questions have already been answered... I've
looked through the past four months in the archives and was unable to find
answers.

1) Why was the DOM 2 HTML module taken back to Working Draft status, and has
remained that way since December? I just wondered because I can't see
anything fundamentally wrong with it... it doesn't "do" much but I wouldn't
have thought that was a reason to abandon it.

2) Are there any plans to provide an XHTML DOM module? As the HTML DOM specs
say, they aren't ideally suited for XHTML. It sames strange to me that there
is an HTML module "for convenience" but nothing for XHTML. Making it easier
to manipulate HTML documents while trying to persuade people to adopt XHTML
seems to be working at crossed-purposes somewhat. On the same thread... if
someone wanted to implement an XHTML DOM, would they be expected to limit it
to the XML/Core/Stylesheets etc DOMs or go through the HTML module and pick
the bits that apply/work with XHTML documents?

3) Why do interfaces such as HTMLDOMImplementation inherit from
DOMImplementation? Wouldn't it be 'cleaner' to have them as separate
interfaces that are expected to be implemented by
DOMImplementation -classes- that support the relevant module? For example, a
DOMImplementation class (not interface) for an implementation that supports
the 'standard' DOM, the HTML DOM, and the MathML DOM, would need to inherit
from DOMImplementation, HTMLDOMImplementation (which itself inherits from
DOMImplementation) and MathMLDOMImplementation (which again inherits from
DOMImplementation). This is, at best, messy, and can cause implementation
difficulties. I personally would have preferred for the
HTMLDOMImplementation and MathMLDOMImplementation interfaces to -not-
inherit, but instead be considered as optional "extra" interfaces that
provide the add-on functionality. Was there a reason for the choice?

Again, apologies if these are old topics.

- Chris.
Received on Wednesday, 23 May 2001 06:14:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 22 June 2012 06:13:48 GMT