Re: DOM L2 comments, various

David Brownell wrote:
>         * The system and public IDs are really for the "document
>           type's external subset", not for the "document type", as
>           it's now written.


>         * I can't see how I'd write a chunk of code that'll know it
>           can use Level 2 features ... e.g. it's portable and needs
>           to work with both L1 and L2.

I don't understand, the idea is that you'd write something like:

if (DOMImplementation.hasFeature("XML", "2.0")) {
} else {

>           I'd like to see a "DOM" feature (for DOMImplementation) be
>           defined, which would report on which level is supported.

Like what? Something like this:

DOMString getFeature(DOMString feature)

that would return the version? I can see some use for it but it doesn't
seem so necessary to me.

>         * It's confusing to have feature definitions scattered all
>           over the spec.
>           I'd like to see them collected in one table at one place, so
>           their overall scope is more readily understood.

I'll see what I can do on that front.

>         * I still don't see why there's no solution for getting access
>           to a system default DOM implementation, at least for Java.

I don't think there is any good reason apart from the lack of time to
discuss it.

>           I'm posting an implementation in a followup post.  I'd like
>           to see something like this in the org.w3c.dom Java package.

Thank you.

> 1.1.7   Namespaces ... it may be useful to note that the DOM has
>         adopted an 'early binding' model of namespace URIs to
>         elements.  With early binding, the URIs are permanently
>         bound to elements as they get created.

Ok, I've tried to make this clearer.

> 1.2     DOMException ... ambiguous re whether the other numeric
>         codes are reserved to W3C or not.  They should be.
>         Similar comment for "Node" ... nobody except W3C should
>         be defining new numeric codes for "nodeType".

I added wording to make this clear.

> 1.2     Document ... refers to "invalid" characters.  "Illegal"
>         would be more correct (with reference under DOMException
>         to XML, HTML, and related specs for what that means).  Of
>         course the INVALID_CHARACTER_ERR name is grandfathered...

This comes from DOM Level 1...

> 1.2     Document.importNode ... I'm rather uncomfortable with that
>         name "import" since that implies the same object is in use
>         (e.g. if I import something from Canada).  "copy" is the
>         appropriate word, and is even used in the documentation
>         more than once.  "import" suggests the wrong thing.

I'll see what the WG wants to do about that one.

Thank you very much for your careful review Dave!
Arnaud  Le Hors,  W3C  -

Received on Monday, 4 October 1999 11:49:11 UTC