W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-dom@w3.org > July to September 2001

Re: DOMBuilder in L3

From: David Brownell <david-b@pacbell.net>
Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 14:44:31 -0700
To: Joseph Kesselman <keshlam@us.ibm.com>
Cc: www-dom@w3.org
Message-id: <138301c10664$d7acb200$6800000a@brownell.org>
> >Not until supporting a "no-sugar" diet is "required", not "optional";
> >you seem to have ignored that (distinct) point.
> Both modes are "requried" by some applications. 

Exactly why I think it's wrong to make one of them "optional".

Please go read that part of the spec to see what I've been talking
about:  some of the relevant flag settings are "optional".  I'd like
your next response to that point to indicate you at least can see
the issue I've raised ... :)

> For that reason, I'm not really dogmatic about which way this should go. I
> do think that having the DOM default to building as complete a DOM as
> possible and filtering down from there is a touch cleaner,
> architecturally... but I grant that this is a matter of taste.

Architecturally, such issues can't matter ... unless things are set up the
way they are now, so that the "filter down" (at build-time) approach
can't work reliably!  (See above.)

Stylistically, it certainly does matter whether the default policy settings
aim for the 80% or the 20%.  I think the defaults now aim for the 20%,
but I get the feeling some people like it that way.

> >"property" (in explanatory text) and "feature" (in the API) are both used.
> If they're both used to refer to the same things, we should certainly fix

As I said.  Again, go read the WD ... I think that since some of the text
needs to change, it'd really be better to use a word that captures the
boolean nature of this beast, such as "flag".

- Dave
Received on Friday, 6 July 2001 17:45:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 20 October 2015 10:46:08 UTC