- From: Martijn Pieters <mj@digicool.com>
- Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 18:38:39 +0100
- To: www-dom@w3.org
On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 09:01:31AM -0800, David Brownell wrote: > > In DOM level 1, what are now the 'Core' and 'XML' were together called the > > 'XML' feature. Returning true on 'XML', '1.0' meant that both the > > fundamental and the extended interfaces were supported. This was not > > consistent with the rest of the DOM spec, because the Extended interfaces > > were optional for 'HTML' feature DOM implementations. > > You seem to be confused. In DOM Level 1, "Core" was never visible > as a testable feature revision level ... you asked instead about XML or > about HTML, and inferred about "core". > > There was no inconsistency ... it was just another hidden feature that > was implied by something else. DOM L2 just made it explicit. Now > if they'd have done the same thing for bootstrapping and DTD support, > it would have been better. Right, I see. The fact that the hasFeature method existed implied that the 'Core' featureset was supported. This makes things a little clearer. So, should a DOM level 2 implementation return true on hasFeature('Core', '1.0) or hasFeature('XML', '1.0')? I *think* it should, but would like to hear confirmation. -- Martijn Pieters | Software Engineer mailto:mj@digicool.com | Digital Creations http://www.digicool.com/ | Creators of Zope http://www.zope.org/ ---------------------------------------------
Received on Monday, 19 February 2001 12:38:52 UTC