- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 17:06:01 +0300
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Oct 3, 2007, at 17:53, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > Henri Sivonen wrote: >> (For the benefit of those who look up things piecemeal in the spec > > Which is pretty much everyone, in my experience, especially with a > spec this size. Agreed. >> to whom it isn't clear that the spec looks everything through DOM- >> colored glasses and who assume general English meaning of words, > > Does the spec use a different term to refer to the Document object > then? It uses Document with capital D and <code> markup styled in a distinct way except in the terms "HTML document" and "XML document". > Using a single word to mean two different things depending on the > context (which is not always clear in this spec, in my experience) > seems like a bad idea. I searched around the draft for "document". It appears that "document" is most often used in a generic English sense meaning the document in an abstract representation-independent sense (i.e. DOM tree specifically). The usage turns to DOM representations around the definitions of "HTML document" and "XML document". When the DOM representation is referred to, saying "document tree" (or "|Document| object") would be better. The sentence "|Document| objects are assumed to be XML documents unless they are flagged as being HTML documents when they are created. Whether a document is an HTML document or an XML document affects the behaviour of certain APIs, as well as a few CSS rendering rules." could be clarified as "|Document| objects are assumed to represent XML documents unless they are flagged as representing HTML documents when they are created. Whether |Document| object represents an HTML document or an XML document affects the behaviour of certain APIs, as well as a few CSS rendering rules." -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Friday, 5 October 2007 14:06:25 UTC