So then can I safely assume that the functions arent really depreciated then?
If the functions were to be depreciated there really isn't a replacement for them implemented yet. As far as the set_node_value, I had just mentioned that as according to the docs the functions were being depreciated due to being non-compliant. If that was/is the case, then there would be the need for this to at least be able to set the content on text, cdata, comment, etc.. nodes. Rob On Saturday 18 May 2002 11:37 am, Christian Stocker wrote: > On Sat, 18 May 2002, Lukas Schroeder wrote: > > On Sat, May 18, 2002 at 10:05:32AM -0400, Rob Richards wrote: > > > I have been going through the latest domxml extension and have a few > > > questions about it. Looking at the docs, it is indicated that > > > set_content and get_content are depreciated. > > > > > > set_content - Create a new node with e.g. > > > DomDocument_create_text_node() und add it with DomNode_append_child(). > > > get_content - Content is just a text node and can be accessed with > > > DomNode_child_nodes(). > > > > > > Would get_content really be replace with node_value? All the > > > child_nodes would give you is the child nodes. > > > > the contents of an element-node are contained in a child-node of that > > element-node with the special node-name "#text". using child_nodes would > > give you these contents. but, without a get_content() (get_node_value()) > > function there is no way to get the nodeValue (content) of the "#text" > > node. hehe. > > > > i hope, that deprecating or even removing a get_content() function (or > > an equivalent) wont happen, because i definately dont want to replace > > entity-references in contents manually. > > the purpose of get_content() was and is to do that for me. > > yep. i agree. Making domxml w3c-compliant doesn't mean for me removing all > the other not-w3c-compliant functions. I don't see any sense in removing > this sometimes very handy functions. I'm not sure, why these functions are > markes as deprecated in the manual... > > > > On that note, if you are trying to set the value of an existing node, > > > using the replacement (as indicated from the docs) you would should be > > > creating a new node and appending it, which means you then should > > > remove the old node. Shouldnt there be a set_node_value or similar > > > function to just replace the content of an existing node? A > > > set_node_value function would be DOM compliant as the nodeValue > > > property is read/write according to the specs. > > but that doesn't help you anything. nodeValue of an element node does not > carry the content of this element (IIRC). nodeValue of a textnode does on > the other side.. > > > chregu -- PHP Development Mailing List <http://www.php.net/> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
