"Martin v. Loewis" wrote: > > > What if we put these on the implementation, that or came up with a > > standard interface on the node. Then, every DOM imp that wants to be > > compatible with xpath/xslt needs to support this interface? > > > > > > node.ownerDocument.implementation.releaseNode(node) > > > > or > > > > node.py_unlink() > > releaseNode sounds good to me; it is unlikely that W3C would give an > operation that name but a different meaning. Any objections? Should we standardize all of the python xml extensions with a py prefix? pyReleaseNode or py_releaseNode? Then we will never have to worry about a name clash. Mike > > Regards, > Martin -- Mike Olson Principal Consultant mike.olson@fourthought.com (303)583-9900 x 102 Fourthought, Inc. http://Fourthought.com Software-engineering, knowledge-management, XML, CORBA, Linux, Python
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4