- From: John Cowan <cowan@locke.ccil.org>
- Date: Wed, 09 Sep 1998 16:44:29 -0400
- To: DOM List <www-dom@w3.org>
Stephen R. Savitzky wrote: > My point is that the specification does not preclude such an > interpretation. True. > I think that in many implementations of the DOM there _will_ be > implementation-specific information in a Node, and in that case cloneNode > _should_ be expected to copy it. I wouldn't expect it to do so, however. > In some implementations this will not be the case. In fact, it's not even > the case for the public interfaces, since there are attributes of, say, > HTMLDocument and HTMLElement that are not accessible from the result of > createElement without type-casting. I concede the case of HTMLDocument, as the attributes referrer, fileSize, file*Date, domain, URL, and cookie are not present in Document. However, I believe there are no IDL attributes of HTMLElement or its subclasses that are not essentially convenience methods. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan cowan@ccil.org You tollerday donsk? N. You tolkatiff scowegian? Nn. You spigotty anglease? Nnn. You phonio saxo? Nnnn. Clear all so! 'Tis a Jute.... (Finnegans Wake 16.5)
Received on Wednesday, 9 September 1998 16:46:18 UTC