Thanks for the input. They'll go on the "brainstorming Level 3 
requirements" list.


On 16 Nov 99, at 13:26, David Brownell wrote:

> Miscellany, including some based on recent XML-DEV discussion.
> - Still need a module to hook a DOM up to a parser.  It should
>   have a way to report errors, to request validation (by DTD),
>   and to continue after reporting nonfatal errors (such as
>   validity errors, and warnings).
> - That module should offer control over what nodes show up
>   in the resulting tree.
>   I'll single out the use of CDATA versus normal text, the
>   incorporation of "ignorable" whitespace, existence of
>   Comment nodes, existence of EntityReference nodes, and the
>   existence of DocumentType as things that I've found to be
>   troublesome in various DOMs I've used.  Perhaps the flags
>   used in the traversal APIs can be flags to the parser, so
>   hookup API -- but that won't address ignorable whitespace.
> - Currently there's a single node policy implemented by the
>   Element.normalize() method ... the policy being that
>   adjacent Text nodes get merged.  And there's a related
>   policy that when that TBD parser hookup exists, the
>   output tree in effect be pre-normalized.  (Which I see
>   as a strange policy given the lack of parser hookup!)
>   I'd like corresponding policies for geting rid of the node
>   types mentioned above, without needing to walk the tree.
>   (Precedent has been set that such "avoid a tree walk"
>   API can be part of the DOM -- Element.normalize and
>   Document.importNode are two examples.)
> In the two points above, I'll emphasize EntityReference
> nodes as troublesome ... even if one tries to use a tree
> walker API to present a view without EntityReference nodes,
> the illusion falls apart the moment one tries to modify a
> node that's readonly.  (And suppose I want to just use the
> standard API, anyway?)  Basically, I usually don't care about
> the entity references, while I do care about being able to
> modify _any_ DOM data structure once I've got it.
> - For nodes exposing a SystemId, there are cases where it
>   needs to be a fully resolved URI; and there are cases
>   where it needs to be unresolved.
>   I suggest that there thus be _two_ attributes, one for the
>   resolved ID and one for the unresolved one.  (I know DOM
>   implementations that take each approach.)
> - There should be some way to expose the encoding used for
>   a given entity ... and it should _not_ look like a PI node.
> OK, that's all that comes to mind right now.
> - Dave

Received on Tuesday, 16 November 1999 17:17:27 UTC