[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [cgmo-webcgm] Proposal: Removing the WebCGMText interface from our DOM
Hi Benoit, We are in favour of option 2) as well. We haven't touched the WebCGMText interface so far and used the WebCGMNode.nodeValue approach instead. Adapting the Text interface for this purpose was on our list but there is no real benefit in it. Regards Ulrich -----Original Message----- From: Benoit Bezaire [mailto:benoit@itedo.com] Sent: Freitag, 17. Dezember 2004 13:41 To: CGM Open WebCGM TC Subject: [cgmo-webcgm] Proposal: Removing the WebCGMText interface from our DOM Hi, We (Itedo developers) have been questioning the usefulness of the WebCGMText interface for some time... We've been wondering why the XML DOM includes such an elaborated Text/Character Data interface, see: http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-DOM-Level-3-Core-20040407/core.html#ID-1312295 772 The explanation I was able to find is as follows "The DOM implementation may not put arbitrary limits on the amount of data that may be stored in a CharacterData node. However, implementation limits may mean that the entirety of a node's data may not fit into a single DOMString. In such cases, the user may call substringData to retrieve the data in appropriately sized pieces." First, we don't really believe that fitting a node's data into a DOMString to be a problem for WebCGM use cases (applyCompanion file). Second, our WebCGMText interface doesn't include the methods that would seem advantageous regarding memory management, below is our WebCGMText interface: interface WebCGMText: WebCGMNode { readonly attribute WebCGMString data; readonly attribute unsigned long length; }; I believe we have two options: 1) Add more functionality to the WebCGMText interface so that long data strings can easily be handled by implementers and script writers. or 2) Remove the WebCGMText interface since WebCGMNode.nodeValue is equivalent to WebCGMText.data. Our suggestion is Option 2, removal of WebCGMText. We don't think that the benefits of a complex WebCGMText interface is worth the development effort. Thoughts? -- Benoit mailto:benoit@itedo.com
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]