- From: David Brownell <david-b@pacbell.net>
- Date: Mon, 04 Oct 1999 10:18:41 -0700
- To: "Stephen R. Savitzky" <steve@rsv.ricoh.com>
- Cc: www-dom@w3.org
"Stephen R. Savitzky" wrote: > > It's a problem -- there _has_ to be some extension mechanism defined in the > spec. The spec allows anyone to define, for example, new interfaces (outside of the org.w3c.* space) and implement them, as well as persuade others to implement them. I guess I don't see why element and attribute declarations would need to look like DOM "Node" objects except for a JavaScript environment. I've certainly written, and used, enough code where they're done without using DOM "Node" objects, so it's not a necessity argument. I can't see much benefit coming from sibling/parent/owner navigation there. I'm more sympathetic to defining new exception codes outside the range of the types defined by W3C. > The simplest thing would be to set aside for the implementation all > values with the high-order bit set; these would map into the negative values > in languages that don't have unsigned integers. - Dave
Received on Monday, 4 October 1999 13:19:50 UTC