- From: Kevin J <kevinjz@hotmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 17:59:38 -0400 (EDT)
- To: keshlam@us.ibm.com
- Cc: www-dom@w3.org
>From: "Joseph Kesselman/Watson/IBM" <keshlam@us.ibm.com> > >Another possible approach,less elegant but more portable, would be a >"lightweight subclassing" scheme. Here, you would annotate "standard" nodes >rather than subclassing them -- eg, by providing one or more tables indexed >by node identity which can be used to retrieve whatever additional >information and/or code you want to associate with it. So far I follow. > >The challenge here is that "node identity" is not necessarily the same as >the address of the Node object (eg if your DOM is a proxy for some other >data structure, you might have several objects proxying the same datum and >thus representing "the same node), so it isn't clear what could be used as >an index for those tables. DOM Level 3 is investigating this. I don't understand what you write in parentheses. Isn't a DOM node object in a tree unique? If it is unique, then why would using its address not work as an index into the table? K _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com.
Received on Thursday, 19 October 2000 14:00:22 UTC