Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: David Brownell <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: XML Dev <email@example.com>
- Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 16:01:50 -0700
John Cowan wrote:
> [ re the dom-node property and where to start "parsing" Documents ]
> > Why do you not like making that property (dom-node) be read/write,
> Essentially because the value of getProperty("dom-node") is a Node,
> whereas the argument to setProperty("dom-node", doc) needs to be a
But a "Document" is a "Node", so there's no inconsistency.
> This is an ugly asymmetry, even though the compiler is
> unable to check the type. Adding a new property
> ("dom-document") would be better,
I guess I don't see that either. The value of the "dom-node"
property when the startDocument() call is made needs to be the
document; that's not an asymmetry.
Adding another property might be nice, but doesn't seem essential.
"Nice" only because you could see it when you weren't parsing.
But I've got something against adding too many interfaces; I've
found minimalist interfaces grow a lot more gracefully than the
> > beyond that not being what you implemented already?
> (heh heh)
Whoops -- I forgot my smiley! :-)
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:email@example.com the following message;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:email@example.com)