On Thursday 07 October 2004 05:59 pm, Marcus Boerger wrote: > It makes little to no sense to keep names for BC in an extension that uses > names based on a spec. Especially when the old names were never published > as a valid spec. Those names would only blow up the namesspace and lead to > confusion once people work with the api that only know the spec - and > wondering what else is there for which they cannot find a spec...
I had thought about this and checked out the specs a bit more. Looking at the changes they made from the Draft to the Recommendation, trying to stick just to the specs is a bit overblown and we are allowed to extend them. Some of the extended functionality is there for convience (easier and faster to use than if all of level 3 is implemented). Now take for instance load/save. There was no definition for these in Level 2 (so they could be implemented in any manner). Currently dom uses load, loadXML, save, saveXML - and these were actually in the Level 3 draft as convience methods - well no longer - they changed these. I dont think these should be dropped. There is a whole DOM Load/Save API - about 7 interfaces - which arent implemented. I can possibly see removing a few of the props/methods - ones which have the exact same functionality and aren't standardly used, but then should these changes be made to the 5_0 branch as well? - Would propose any of these changes on the xml-dev list. I see compliance with Level 2 important, but not fully supporting Level 3 isnt (Level 3 is a little overblown imho). Rob -- PHP CVS Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
