Content deleted Content added
→Shadow DOM?: new section |
Gnomingstuff (talk | contribs) rv 2009 nonsenes |
||
| (16 intermediate revisions by 13 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|
{{WikiProject Computing |importance=Mid}}
}}
== VTD-XML is not spam ==
Line 75 ⟶ 78:
Need some simple examples, like "here is a nutcracker, see how it cracks a nut", etc. [[User:Jidanni|Jidanni]] ([[User talk:Jidanni|talk]]) 20:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
:that would define original interpretation of what u searching and would help users to d copies. you cand do that in foirums but i order to read it u must do screen captures.
can someone guide next an wp editor proceed & upload printscreens?paul80
== Google Patent: Enhanced document browsing with automatically generated links to relevant information ==
Hi all, this is miles outside of my own subject knowledge area, but apparantly google have filed a patent to automatically place links on a webpage specific to each user, using the DOM.... thought it might be relevant (but may not be).
Line 88 ⟶ 93:
::Here: "The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), founded in 1994 to promote open standards for the World Wide Web, brought Netscape Communications and Microsoft together with other companies to develop a standard for browser scripting languages, called "ECMAScript"." The way it's worded it sounds to me like the article is suggesting that W3C created ECMAScript the language. [[Special:Contributions/108.28.51.60|108.28.51.60]] ([[User talk:108.28.51.60|talk]]) 02:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
:::Ah, I see. Are you saying that that sentence should end, "...a standard for browser scripting languages, which is now called "ECMAScript""? Or should the surgery go deeper, to completely separate the development of the DOM from that of the language? What do others think? --[[User:Nigelj|Nigelj]] ([[User talk:Nigelj|talk]]) 08:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
::::I think it's even worse than that. This section implies the W3C was invested in the ECMAScript standard, which (according to Doug Crockford - yuiblog.com/crockford/ - Lecture 1), is entirely untrue. In fact, Crockford claims that the W3C did not standardization of JavaScript by Netscape at all, which led to Netscape's odd choice of ECMA for the JavaScript standardization body. The idea the the W3C (a standards body itself) would coordinate with other entities to have a third party standardize a web technology is absurd on its face. It would be like Toyota bringing together a group of companies to design a car for Honda. -[[User:plamoni|plamoni]] ([[User talk:plamoni|talk]]) 21:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/167.80.246.204|167.80.246.204]] ([[User talk:167.80.246.204|talk]]) </span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
== Layout Engines ==
Line 135 ⟶ 141:
::::But if you're alright with my latest revision of the introductory section, I'll go ahead and add it once I've found some references? The w3c document you linked might be useful for some of it, but unfortunately until HTML5 the specification didn't even address the inner workings I refer to.
::::--[[User:Qwerty0|Qwerty0]] ([[User talk:Qwerty0|talk]]) 06:01, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
I've just found this again, having forgotten it for a few months. I see neither of us actually did much in the end at the time. I've just reverted an edit by {{user|TheBoothy}}. I'll explain why in steps as it's all pretty relevant to what we were saying above.
*'Web browsers '''usually''' use an internal model similar to the DOM' - there is no reason why they have to, internally, as long as they fulfil the DOM's interface when scripts make calls on it.
Line 141 ⟶ 147:
*When we say 'JavaScript sees...', that isn't sloppy English for 'JavaScript inspects...'. The script 'sees' the page via its [[interface (computing)]]; that is good technical grammar, whether it is querying the page structure, or altering it. It is not, ''per se'' an inspector of things.
I hope this will be clearer when somebody has a good go at writing a proper clear explanation. --[[User:Nigelj|Nigelj]] ([[User talk:Nigelj|talk]]) 00:15, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
I just watched [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxmcDoAxdoY this video], linked by {{user|Qwerty0}} above. In that the speaker is pretty definite that the DOM ''is'' the data structure produced by the browser's parser. He's talking about HTML5, and there are now reference implementations of the perfect parser getting released, open source. These are written in Python, Java etc and are pretty certainly object oriented in their implementations. So what is the point in me trying to maintain some subtle distinction in my first bullet point just above, and the third bullet in my list above that one. So, I re-read [http://www.w3.org/TR/DOM-Level-2-Core/introduction.html this DOM Level 2] spec. In that the authors are pretty clear that the parser may not even be written in an OO language (guess, e.g. C), and so there is no way it can create the ''objects'' specified by the DOM spec: "The structure of SGML documents has traditionally been represented by an abstract data model, not by an object model." Therefore there is no necessary link between the internal data structure and the DOM, only a requirement to behave properly to incoming, valid, DOM-based, OO, script code: "The Document Object Model is not a set of data structures; it is an object model that specifies interfaces." Now, this article is about DOMs in general, not just the HTML5 DOM, so we need to maintain the distinctions required by other DOM specs, I think, at least until they are deprecated, or have really fallen out of use just about everywhere. That said, with free open-source, perfect, HTML5 parsers available, no one but an idiot would write their own - especially in a non-OO language - these days (and have to simulate all that OO DOM stuff from some other data structure). So, maybe there is no need to harp on about the older distinctions. Comments welcome. --[[User:Nigelj|Nigelj]] ([[User talk:Nigelj|talk]]) 01:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Right now, the opening paragraph of the article is pretty much junk. One should never, ever load up an introduction with technical jiberish and word after word of linked explanations. That just turns off the reader. Please put something like Qwerty0's simple explanation in place of it. It just makes more sense. - [[User:KitchM|KitchM]] ([[User talk:KitchM|talk]]) 18:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
== Shadow DOM? ==
Line 149 ⟶ 157:
See http://glazkov.com/2011/01/14/what-the-heck-is-shadow-dom/
[[User:Strugee|Strugee]] ([[User talk:Strugee|talk]]) 01:50, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
== DOM is API itself according to W3C specification ==
<ref></ref>So the sentence "The public interface of a DOM is specified in its application programming interface (API)" assumes that there is also a non-public one. Since DOM is an API and and any API is a "public interface" by definition the wording "public interface of a DOM" is misleading. --[[User:Smbat.petrosyan|Smbat.petrosyan]] ([[User talk:Smbat.petrosyan|talk]]) 03:45, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
you could say '''DOM Level 0 coprises part of html4''' that way users would use _full html_ in version4, and even more programmers would migrate tro hyml4 and html5 <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/188.25.110.232|188.25.110.232]] ([[User talk:188.25.110.232|talk]]) 02:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
== this article can use LEVEL-1, LEVEL-2, LEVEL-3 as sections ==
why not?
== DOM for SGML? ==
The article mentions that the Document Object Model (DOM) "treats an [[HTML]], [[XHTML]], or [[XML]] document as a tree structure." What about [[SGML]]? Doesn't the DOM treats SGML documents? Since both HTML and XML are extended from SGML, and XHTML is extended from XML and HTML, perhaps we should mention SGML in the article and – if it isn't treated by the DOM – explain why it isn't. —[[User:Kri|Kri]] ([[User talk:Kri|talk]]) 07:18, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
| |||