W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-dom@w3.org > January to March 2002

Re: Comments on DOM Level 3 Load/Save

From: Fred L. Drake, Jr. <fdrake@acm.org>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 22:03:20 -0500
Message-ID: <15479.1656.330378.159817@grendel.zope.com>
To: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
Cc: WWW DOM <www-dom@w3.org>

Philippe Le Hegaret writes:
 > I would have preferred personally to see URIs
 > (http://www.w3.org/2002/validate-if-schema) rather ad-hoc prefixes
 > (w3.org.validate-if-schema) but, for usability reasons (avoiding typos),
 > the WG decided to stick with validate-if-schema. The simple fact that

I'd be happy with URIs as well.  The real point is to avoid name
clashes between vendor extensions and W3C-ordained options.

 > I tried to look back in our archives to find the exact reason but didn't
 > find it. As far as I remember, we decided that namespaces will not be
 > optional for the DOM Level 3 Load and Save and won't provide a way to
 > not have namespaces in LS. Nowadays, all XML applications provided
 > within the W3C (and a lot outside the W3C) do have namespaces support.
 > So we classified XML applications without namespaces in our design
 > failure category. I understand that this might be viewed as an arbitrary
 > choice but it is also clear in our mind that the DOM 3 LS is only *a*
 > solution to load a DOM tree and not *the* solution, especially when we
 > don't resolve at all the problems related with the XML processing model.

This seems *incredibly* arbitrary.  I can tell you now what my first
extension will be.  I'm just not sure what to call it.

Even if the spec makes a turn-off-namespaces option default to false
(namespaces enabled) and make support for namespace-less processing
optional, I think a lot of implementations will have a namespace-less
mode, and it would be very helpful if there was exactly one name for

 > Thanks for the reminder. I checked our latest internal version and we
 > did address the issue (and rearranged a little the table of contents at
 > the time). We'll probably published a draft in March after addressing
 > the rest of your issues next week.

I look forward to the next draft.  I hope to have time next week to
write up some additional comments that I think should be addressed
before the spec is considered "implementable".

Thanks for taking time to address my concerns.


Fred L. Drake, Jr.  <fdrake at acm.org>
PythonLabs at Zope Corporation
Received on Friday, 22 February 2002 22:05:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 20 October 2015 10:46:09 UTC