- From: Joseph Kesselman <keshlam@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 20:00:30 -0400
- To: www-dom@w3.org
Tom is absolutely rightt. Given that XML is abstract markup, there really is no single string that all XML-based languages will agree correctly represents the element's content. The desired string representation might just as well be "[bold] statement, This is a" -- or even "783092389", that being the order number for the "This is a statement" purchase (<p/>) with the billing number (<b/>) "bold" and no attributes on either (which might have affected how it was resolved). The question isn't "independent text units". It's the fact that the element's structure, as well as its text content, may have meaning to a given application. That's true even in HTML; would you really want the element's node value to include the content of <script> elements? This isn't to say that get-all-contained-text is useless. It's a perfectly reasonable operation which will _SOMETIMES_ be valuable, which is why Ranges have a mechanism for retrieving that information, and there have occasionally been proposals that we add a non-Range convenience function to retrieve it. But it's up to the application to decide when that is and isn't a useful view of this subtree. ______________________________________ Joe Kesselman / IBM Research
Received on Monday, 9 July 2001 20:01:05 UTC