- From: Lisa Rein <lisarein@finetuning.com>
- Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 18:51:13 -0800
- To: Alexandre Rafalovitch <arafalov@socs.uts.EDU.AU>
- CC: www-dom@w3.org
- Message-ID: <3456A4A0.FF7057B3@finetuning.com>
I think this kind of annotation could be very useful. Much in the same way the "Java Console" in Netscape provides us with a record of what classes didn't make it etc.....it could be a very useful log for what code was "passed over" ....which code was "available" compared to what was actually "parsed" ;-) Alexandre Rafalovitch wrote: > On Thu, 16 Oct 1997, Paul Grosso wrote: > > > At 21:27 1997 10 15 -0400, Alexandre Rafalovitch wrote: > > >These are comments on DOM Level 1 document as of 9th of October draft. > > > > > > Am I correct in understanding that comment node should be generated for > > > that and returned in getChildren() call, but not in getAttributes() > > > call. The alternative is to not represent in-tag comment in DOM. What > > > about error nodes. (I know they should not happen, but....) > > > > I don't really know what you mean by error nodes, but in general it may > > not be possible to define a DOM on erroneous input. Certainly, the input > > must be good enough to model before we can define a document object model > > for it. > > > > What about the case when it is possible. For example, if you look at html > source code with errors in Netscape, you would notice, it recovers from > errors by ignoring part of the input (it is shown in different color). > This way, you can see where was the error. In the same way an Error node > would just contains text representation of skipped part and can be ignored > by the application processor if not needed. Most probably it could happen > on any level. > > Regards, > Alex.
Received on Monday, 27 October 1997 23:02:15 UTC