W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > May 1997

RE: DOM, markup, and "dynamic html"

From: Scott Isaacs <scotti@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 18:30:28 -0700
Message-ID: <4175E9758584CF11927E00805F68ACFA02E04067@RED-99-MSG.dns.microsoft.com>
To: "Joel N. Weber II" <devnull@gnu.ai.mit.edu>, "'Todd Fahrner'" <fahrner@pobox.com>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
In IE4, we always maintain and surface a valid tree for all documents.
The tree is exposed flattened in a collection based on a pre-order
traversal of the tree. From any element, the parent element can be
accessed, as well as the ordinal position of the element in the
flattened tree.

For valid HTML documents, the tree is unambigious. For invalid HTML
documents, we do our best to clean it up to create a valid tree.

As Todd mentions, you will be able to separate your scripts, style, and
content into separate files.

For example:

<HTML>
  <HEAD>
    <LINK REL="stylesheet" HREF="myFile.css" TYPE="text/css">
    <SCRIPT SRC="dynamic.js" LANGUAGE="Javascript"></SCRIPT>
  </HEAD>
  <BODY>
    content goes here
  </BODY>
</HTML>

-Scott

> ----------
> From: 	Todd Fahrner[SMTP:fahrner@pobox.com]
> Sent: 	Saturday, May 24, 1997 1:11 PM
> To: 	Joel N. Weber II; Scott Isaacs
> Cc: 	www-style@w3.org
> Subject: 	Re: DOM, markup, and "dynamic html"
> 
> At 3:49 PM -0400 5/24/1997, Joel N. Weber II wrote:
> > Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but it looks to me like
> > dynamic HTML assumes the browser internally flattens out the HTML
> > tree.  That would make implementing it difficult in a browser which
> > uses a tree structure internally.
> >
> > >From what little I've seen of dynamic HTML, it looks to me like
> it's
> > impossible to get any two browsers to support it the same exact way.
> > And it doesn't look like it's going to downgrade gracefully either.
> 
> I don't quite follow you here - probably my shaky grasp of
> implementation
> issues. But as for graceful degradation - that's at the heart of my
> questions. I'd say that something degrades gracefully if you end up
> shipping only the parts of a document that the client - any client -
> can
> make good sense of. If you can have totally generic HTML (no
> presentational
> markup) in one file, CSS in another, and scripts in a third, I'd say
> you've
> hit the target. And it's looking to me like that's what we'll have in
> both
> 4.0 browsers, with the exception of NS's markup-based solution to
> "dynamism". *yawn*
> 
> __________________
> Todd Fahrner
> mailto:fahrner@pobox.com
> http://www.verso.com
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 26 May 1997 21:30:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:53:50 GMT