Re: Comments on DOM 2 wrote:
> > Comments aren't there for program use, shouldn't be customized.
> I agree in principle, but I'm not willing to bet that way right now. The
> boundary of "program use" is fuzzy.
> Thought experiment: What if the subclassing is being done to make the DOM
> model interoperate with another API appropriate to that document type? A
> comment might still want to be accessible via that alternative view.

Accessible != customizable.

As I said, just because you can use a hubcap as a shovel doesn't
mean such usage should be a basic design consideration for a car.

Likewise, just because legacy non-extensible systems (HTML) do
something does not mean its hacks (e.g. css/JavaScript/... in
comments) and limitations should be the foundation to build on
with a designed-for-extensibility XML future.

- Dave

Received on Wednesday, 1 March 2000 17:27:11 UTC