- From: Lauren Wood <lauren@sqwest.bc.ca>
- Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 10:01:19 -0800
- To: www-dom@w3.org
David Brownell wrote: > > I'd say it's clear that as written, DOM is attached to the application > rather than to the "XML Processor" (not parser!) level. Terminology time: the DOM talks about the hosting implementation (e.g. browser, editor, server) and the client application (e.g. the script). The DOM defines the interface between these (some if it, at least). The DOM does not define what an XML parser/processor does; it can't define whether an XML processor chooses to pass on ignorable whitespace, for example, or comments. I could imagine a browser that does not pass on comments, or that completely expands entity references before the DOM tree is even built, so that the DOM interfaces have no idea that the comments or parsed entities were present in the original source document. The Level 2 work includes filters, which will help in some ways. For example, you can say you want to see the DOM tree without comments, or with entity references expanded. So this should help in getting rid of the differences between XML processors, and at a level where the DOM can say something. The DOM spec can't add to the XML spec; what is defined as optional behaviour for an XML processor results in different DOM trees. Lauren
Received on Monday, 1 March 1999 13:01:33 UTC