- From: Jesse McCarthy <mccarthy36@earthlink.net>
- Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 16:06:27 -0500
- To: www-dom@w3.org
I asked a similar question on this list previously (see http://lists.w3. org/Archives/Public/www-dom/2001OctDec/0064.html ), but I am not completely convinced / satisifed with the answer I got. Is the DOM ECMAScript binding intended to be taken literally? For instance, is the meaning of the binding that the 'Document' interface should be accessed as an object called 'Document', and not 'document' or 'custardPudding', or _anything_ else? It seems to me that the answer must be yes, that it is intended to be taken literally. In my initial post I cited the example of the Netscape 6.1 browser which I have been using to experiement with the DOM, and which provides an object called 'document' that represents the 'HTMLDocument' interface (which inherits from 'Document', of course). I asked if that implementation _fails_ to comply with the ECMAScript binding and the individual who replied answered that it "is not inconsistent". I think that is wrong. I don't see anything in the DOM Core spec or the ECMAScript binding identified as 'document' so it must be proprietary (I'm well aware that it is historical). If the purpose of the binding is not to establish actual object names, then I don't see what purpose it would serve. Can someone please answer this question for me definitively? Thanks, Jesse McCarthy
Received on Thursday, 8 November 2001 17:53:21 UTC