- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2011 20:55:41 +0000 (UTC)
- To: David Flanagan <dflanagan@mozilla.com>
- cc: Ms2ger <ms2ger@gmail.com>, www-dom@w3.org
On Tue, 9 Aug 2011, David Flanagan wrote: > > I get that part. I was confused about the interaction between the specs > and which spec is allowed to extend the other. I get it now. HTML > includes and extends the DOM. If I'm implementing the DOM spec as part > of my implementation of the HTML spec, then obviously I give the HTML > spec priority. Well it's just a matter of picking which specs you want to implement, and then applying them all. They should not contradict each other. > > > Note that since DOM already defines a flag that creates a > > > distinction between HTML documents and XML documents. It will be > > > very confusing if createDocument() returns an "XML document" that > > > implements the methods of HTMLDocument! > > > > Why would that be confusing? HTMLDocument's APIs apply in XHTML and > > HTML equally. In fact the API is (mostly) serialisation-agnostic. > > There might not even be a serialisation. > > The terminology is confusing because we can have an object that > implements HTMLDocument but is not "flagged as an HTML document". All > documents are HTML documents but some are more HTML than others and get > special uppercasing and lowercasing behavior of their tagnames. Since > the primary consumer of the DOM spec is the HTML spec, I think the > editors of the DOM spec might want to change the phrase "flagged as an > HTML document" since the term "html document" gets overridden by the > HTML spec :-) The term "HTML document" actually comes from the HTML spec originally. The term as used in the HTML spec is the same. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 9 August 2011 20:56:07 UTC