- From: Fred L. Drake, Jr. <fdrake@acm.org>
- Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 23:18:20 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
- Cc: www-dom@w3.org
[Following up to message from late March...] Philippe Le Hegaret writes: > No, it just means that the user has to be careful when he moved a Node > from one Document to an other since the key might change. Note that it > doesn't prevent a DOM implementation to implement the uniquess at the > DOMImplementation level ... Now that I'm looking into DOM Level 3 a little more, I'll take a brief moment to comment on this issue. (I'm reading the 26-Jan-2001 draft at www.w3.org/TR/.) Given this rather strange idea of a DOMKey that may or may not be maintained when moving a node between documents, shouldn't there be a feature name that can be tested to determine if the keys are maintained in this way? I suspect there are a lot of properties that should be testable in this way -- I can imagine the conformance tests would lend themselves to be driven in this way. (For the test suite we're building for the Python DOM API, we do exactly this: every group of tests is categorized according to feature/version pairs that can be checked with DOMImplementation.hasFeature().) > > (p. 16) Issue isSameNode-2: > > Is this really needed if we provide a unique key? > > > > It seems to me isSameNode() is redundant if unique key can be > > truly unique within one specific DOMImplementation. > > following our decision on key-2, we decided to keep this one (well, at > least, for the moment). isSameNode() is also conceptually better. Frankly, I'd like to see some explanation of the motivation & rationale for the DOMKey thing; it certainly seems like a strange way to work with objects in Python (possible, but very strange). -Fred -- Fred L. Drake, Jr. <fdrake at acm.org> PythonLabs at Digital Creations
Received on Wednesday, 4 April 2001 23:18:34 UTC