- From: (unknown charset) Ray D. Whitmer <rayw@imall.com>
- Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 11:12:53 -0700 (MST)
- To: (unknown charset) Dieter Köhler <dieter.koehler@ppp.uni-bamberg.de>
- cc: (unknown charset) Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>, "www-dom@w3.org" <www-dom@w3.org>
On Thu, 9 Mar 2000, Dieter [iso-8859-1] Köhler wrote: >So if backwards compatibility at all is an unrealistic goal in this >particular case, why not strive for a consistant DOM2, now? That >means to raise exceptions if namespace and non-namespace methods were >used at the same namedNodeMap (a variant of a previous suggestion of >mine). In the example above using DOM1 together with DOM2 code would >result in an exception. Pure DOM1 code would still be able to work >together with a DOM2 API, but a mixture would be forbidden. That is >the only amount of backwards compatibility within reach. There is one important case of level 1 and level 2 mixture that does work in the current spec. Consider the supplier of a browser or any other standard framework which parses a document into a DOM without knowing what type of application will operate on it -- level 1 or level 2. A parser is in a superior position to most applications in that it can use level 2 NS methods to easily create a tree that will satisfy either a level 2 or a level 1 application. Either will be perfectly happy until post-parser DOM manipulations compromise the dual integrity, and make the model only suitable to level 1 or level 2. Ray Whitmer ray@xmission.com
Received on Thursday, 9 March 2000 13:13:22 UTC