- From: Jonathan Robie <jonathan@texcel.no>
- Date: Thu, 06 Aug 1998 20:56:26 -0400
- To: steve@crc.ricoh.com (Stephen R. Savitzky)
- Cc: Ted Bashor <bashor@crossroute.com>, www-dom@w3.org
At 01:53 PM 8/6/98 -0700, Stephen R. Savitzky wrote:
>Jonathan Robie <jonathan@texcel.no> writes:
>
>> Personally, I might prefer to have a function that executes an entire
>> XPointer - I see no point to having the ECMA masquerade as XPointers when
>> XPointer notation can do that itself. If I were to implement something like
>> this, I might prefer something like this:
>>
>> this_node=that_node.traverse("child(3,DIV1).child(4,DIV2).child(29,P)");
>
>That would, in my opinion, be a disastrous mistake. There is no need to
>require the DOM to include a parser and interpretor for the clumsy XPointer
>notation -- or any other notation, for that matter. Surely that's a
>language issue.
Taken out of context, this looks like my message was suggesting that this
is something the DOM should do. That's not at all what I meant to say. What
matters is that it should be possible to implement things like this on top
of the DOM.
Jonathan
jonathan@texcel.no
Texcel Research
http://www.texcel.no
Received on Thursday, 6 August 1998 21:16:30 UTC