W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-dom@w3.org > October to December 2001

Re: DOM Level 2 HTML specification updated

From: David Brownell <david-b@pacbell.net>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 14:37:02 -0800
To: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, www-dom@w3.org
Message-id: <215b01c16193$657f1a80$6800000a@brownell.org>
That argument wouldn't hold water with me.  XHTML is both
HTML and XML ... it makes no sense at all to prohibit using
those added DOM functions (say, in client side JavaScript)
just because the source text is well-formed!

I do recall some conflict in the area of symbol case, where
accomodating legacy script code would seem to demand
mutating the cases of symbols in certain cases that ought to
be easy to nail down.

- Dave


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Philippe Le Hegaret" <plh@w3.org>
To: <www-dom@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 12:21 PM
Subject: Re: DOM Level 2 HTML specification updated


> > Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 14:59:21 -0700
> > From: David Brownell <david-b@pacbell.net>
> > Message-id: <1a3801c15da0$4dc82f40$6800000a@brownell.org>
> > Subject: Re: DOM Level 2 HTML specification updated
> > 
> > > With this new update, the DOM Working Group is also proposing to allow
> > > use of the DOM HTML with XHTML 1.0 documents. However, there is no consensus
> > > within W3C Working Groups for this proposal. Comments are highly welcome.
> > 
> > Why isn't this an "of course, just allow it" no-brainer?
> 
> Unfortunately, I don't have a clear answer to this question. My current
> understanding is that some people are concerned about moving XHTML back
> into the HTML world: if XHTML is XML, then you should be able to address
> it with the DOM XML. Therefore, there is no need for a DOM XHTML.
> 
> Philippe
> 
Received on Tuesday, 30 October 2001 17:38:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 22 June 2012 06:13:55 GMT