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: Sat, 07 Jul 2001 10:31:34 -0700
To: Joseph Kesselman <keshlam@us.ibm.com>, www-dom@w3.org
Message-id: <14a401c1070a$ab63db00$6800000a@brownell.org>
My original note reported five separate issues, including both
the suboptimal defaults (one issue) AND this separate one:

> Additionally, setting these flags to 'false' should be required, not
> optional; only the "comments" flag requires that.  (That's implied
> by changing to defaults of 'false'.)  Having "false" be optional
> forces applications to manually filter out such sugar, and makes
> this feature flag much less useful than it ought to be.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Joseph Kesselman" <keshlam@us.ibm.com>
To: <www-dom@w3.org>
Sent: Friday, July 06, 2001 3:33 PM
Subject: Re: DOMBuilder in L3


> 
> >Please go read that part of the spec to see what I've been talking
> >about:  some of the relevant flag settings are "optional"
> 
> So your concern is not the defaults per se (as your original phrasing
> seemed to suggest), but whether all  implementations will permit you to
> override those defaults?
> 
> If that's what you're seeing, then I agree that I have to reread the
> current draft.
> 
> ______________________________________
> Joe Kesselman  / IBM Research
> 
Received on Saturday, 7 July 2001 13:32:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 22 June 2012 06:13:49 GMT