- From: Daniel Glazman <glazman@netscape.com>
- Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 20:28:13 +0100
- To: Toby A Inkster <tobyink@goddamn.co.uk>
- CC: "www-html@w3.org" <www-html@w3.org>
Toby A Inkster wrote: > On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 10:45:21AM +0100, Daniel Glazman wrote: > | 1. it is possible to traverse a document's tree using the DOM without > | having to traverse all attributes. That's the point of parentNode, > | firstChild, lastChild, nextSibling and previousSibling. > | 2. the DOM is not attribute-oriented. To look for all elements carrying > | a given attribute, you have to traverse the elements' tree and then > | check for attribute presence for every element. > > DOM != XML. Sure. But it does not change the whole thing. > > | 4. unless you work in a source environment, and unless you can use a > | style language having attribute selectors, attributes are not meant > | to be presented to the reader and have no influence on the rendering. > > Try explaining to a Lynx user that the "alt" attribute of the <img/> > element is not meant to be presented to them and has no influence on its > rendering. Read me better. Lynx does internally what Tantek could describe img:partial { content: attr(alt); } > > Try explaining to the user of a graphical browser that the "height" and > "width" attributes of the <img/> element have no influence on its > rendering. > > | </Daniel> > > You missed your opening <Daniel> tag. 361. You're very precisely the 361th to tell me since 1991. </Daniel>
Received on Wednesday, 12 March 2003 14:28:06 UTC