throbber
Document Object Model (DOM) Level 1 Specification
`
` REC-DOM-Level-1-19981001
`
`Document Object Model (DOM) Level 1 Specification
`
`Version 1.0
`
`W3C Recommendation 1 October, 1998
`
`This version
`http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-DOM-Level-1-19981001
`http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-DOM-Level-1-19981001/DOM.ps
`http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-DOM-Level-1-19981001/DOM.pdf
`http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-DOM-Level-1-19981001/DOM.tgz
`http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-DOM-Level-1-19981001/DOM.zip
`http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-DOM-Level-1-19981001/DOM.txt
`Latest version
`http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-DOM-Level-1
`Previous versions
`http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/PR-DOM-Level-1-19980818
`http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/WD-DOM-19980720
`http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/WD-DOM-19980416
`http://www.w3.org/TR/WD-DOM-19980318
`http://www.w3.org/TR/WD-DOM-971209
`http://www.w3.org/TR/WD-DOM-971009
`
`WG Chair
`Lauren Wood, SoftQuad, Inc.
`Editors
`Vidur Apparao, Netscape
`Steve Byrne, Sun
`Mike Champion, ArborText
`Scott Isaacs, Microsoft
`Ian Jacobs, W3C
`Arnaud Le Hors, W3C
`Gavin Nicol, Inso EPS
`Jonathan Robie, Texcel Research
`Robert Sutor, IBM
`Chris Wilson, Microsoft
`Lauren Wood, SoftQuad, Inc.
`Principal Contributors
`Vidur Apparao, Netscape
`Steve Byrne, Sun (until November 1997)
`Mike Champion, ArborText, Inc.
`
`1
`
`ACCESSIBE LTD EXHIBIT 1015
`Page 1 of 169
`
`

`

`Status of this document
`
`Scott Isaacs, Microsoft (until January, 1998)
`Arnaud Le Hors, W3C
`Gavin Nicol, Inso EPS
`Jonathan Robie, Texcel Research
`Peter Sharpe, SoftQuad, Inc.
`Bill Smith, Sun (after November 1997)
`Jared Sorensen, Novell
`Robert Sutor, IBM
`Ray Whitmer, iMall
`Chris Wilson, Microsoft (after January, 1998)
`
`Status of this document
`
`This document has been reviewed by W3C Members and other interested parties and has been endorsed
`by the Director as a W3C Recommendation. It is a stable document and may be used as reference material
`or cited as a normative reference from another document. W3C’s role in making the Recommendation is
`to draw attention to the specification and to promote its widespread deployment. This enhances the
`functionality and interoperability of the Web.
`
`The authors of this document are the DOM Working Group members, different chapters may have
`different editors.
`
`Comments on this document should be sent to the public mailing list www-dom@w3.org.
`
`A list of current W3C Recommendations and other technical documents can be found at
`http://www.w3.org/TR.
`
`Errata
`
`The list of known errors in this document is found at
`http://www.w3.org/DOM/updates/REC-DOM-Level-1-19981001-errata.html.
`
`Available Languages
`
`The English version of this specification is the only normative version. However, for translations in other
`languages see http://www.w3.org/DOM/updates/REC-DOM-Level-1-translations.html.
`
`Abstract
`
`This specification defines the Document Object Model Level 1, a platform- and language-neutral interface
`that allows programs and scripts to dynamically access and update the content, structure and style of
`documents. The Document Object Model provides a standard set of objects for representing HTML and
`XML documents, a standard model of how these objects can be combined, and a standard interface for
`accessing and manipulating them. Vendors can support the DOM as an interface to their proprietary data
`structures and APIs, and content authors can write to the standard DOM interfaces rather than
`product-specific APIs, thus increasing interoperability on the Web.
`
`2
`
`ACCESSIBE LTD EXHIBIT 1015
`Page 2 of 169
`
`

`

`Table of contents
`
`The goal of the DOM specification is to define a programmatic interface for XML and HTML. The DOM
`Level 1 specification is separated into two parts: Core and HTML. The Core DOM Level 1 section
`provides a low-level set of fundamental interfaces that can represent any structured document, as well as
`defining extended interfaces for representing an XML document. These extended XML interfaces need
`not be implemented by a DOM implementation that only provides access to HTML documents; all of the
`fundamental interfaces in the Core section must be implemented. A compliant DOM implementation that
`implements the extended XML interfaces is required to also implement the fundamental Core interfaces,
`but not the HTML interfaces. The HTML Level 1 section provides additional, higher-level interfaces that
`are used with the fundamental interfaces defined in the Core Level 1 section to provide a more convenient
`view of an HTML document. A compliant implementation of the HTML DOM implements all of the
`fundamental Core interfaces as well as the HTML interfaces.
`
`Table of contents
`
`Expanded Table of Contents
`.
`.
`Copyright Notice
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`What is the Document Object Model?
`
`.
`.
`.
`
`.
`.
`.
`
`.
`.
`.
`
`Chapter 1: Document Object Model (Core) Level 1
`Chapter 2: Document Object Model (HTML) Level 1
`
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`Appendix A: Contributors
`Appendix B: Glossary
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`Appendix C: IDL Definitions
`.
`.
`.
`.
`Appendix D: Java Language Binding
`.
`.
`Appendix E: ECMA Script Language Binding
`References
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`Index
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`Production Notes (Non-Normative)
`.
`.
`.
`
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`
`.
`.
`.
`
`.
`.
`
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`
`.
`.
`.
`
`.
`.
`
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`
`.
`.
`.
`
`.
`.
`
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`
`.
`.
`.
`
`.
`.
`
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`
`.
`.
`.
`
`.
`.
`
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`
`.
`.
`.
`
`.
`.
`
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`
`.
`.
`.
`
`.
`.
`
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`
`.
`.
`.
`
`.
`.
`
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`
`.
`.
`.
`
`.
`.
`
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`
`.
`.
`.
`
`.
`.
`
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`
`.
`.
`.
`
`5
`7
`9
`
`.15
`
`
`.49
`
`.95
`
`
`.97
`
`.103
`
`.117
`
`.135
`
`.161
`
`.163
`
`.167
`
`3
`
`ACCESSIBE LTD EXHIBIT 1015
`Page 3 of 169
`
`

`

`Table of contents
`
`4
`
`ACCESSIBE LTD EXHIBIT 1015
`Page 4 of 169
`
`

`

`Expanded Table of Contents
`
`Expanded Table of Contents
`Expanded Table of Contents
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`Copyright Notice
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`What is the Document Object Model?
`.
`.
`.
`Introduction
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`What the Document Object Model is
`.
`.
`What the Document Object Model is not
`.
`Where the Document Object Model came from
`Entities and the DOM Core
`.
`.
`.
`.
`DOM Interfaces and DOM Implementations
`Limitations of Level 1
`.
`.
`.
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`
`Chapter 1: Document Object Model (Core) Level 1
`.
`1.1. Overview of the DOM Core Interfaces
`.
`.
`1.1.1. The DOM Structure Model
`.
`.
`.
`1.1.2. Memory Management
`.
`.
`.
`.
`1.1.3. Naming Conventions
`.
`.
`.
`.
`1.1.4. Inheritance vs Flattened Views of the API
`1.1.5. The DOMString type
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`1.1.6. Case sensitivity in the DOM
`.
`.
`.
`.
`1.2. Fundamental Interfaces
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`1.3. Extended Interfaces
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`Chapter 2: Document Object Model (HTML) Level 1
`.
`.
`2.1. Introduction
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`2.2. HTML Application of Core DOM
`.
`.
`.
`.
`2.2.1. Naming Conventions
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`2.3. Miscellaneous Object Definitions
`.
`.
`.
`.
`2.4. Objects related to HTML documents
`.
`.
`.
`2.5. HTML Elements
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`2.5.1. Property Attributes
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`2.5.2. Naming Exceptions
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`2.5.3. Exposing Element Type Names (tagName)
`2.5.4. The HTMLElement interface
`.
`.
`.
`2.5.5. Object definitions
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`
`Appendix A: Contributors
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`Appendix B: Glossary
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`Appendix C: IDL Definitions
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`C.1. Document Object Model Level 1 Core
`.
`C.2. Document Object Model Level 1 HTML
`Appendix D: Java Language Binding
`.
`.
`.
`D.1. Document Object Model Level 1 Core
`.
`
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`
`5
`
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`
`5
`.
`7
`.
`9
`.
`
`.10
`
`.10
`
`.12
`
`.12
`
`.12
`
`.13
`
`.14
`
`.15
`
`
`.16
`
`.16
`
`.16
`
`.17
`
`.17
`
`.18
`
`.18
`
`.19
`
`.43
`
`.49
`
`.50
`
`.50
`
`.50
`
`.51
`
`.52
`
`.55
`
`.55
`
`.55
`
`.56
`
`.56
`
`.57
`
`.95
`
`
`.97
`
`.103
`
`.103
`
`.106
`
`.117
`
`.117
`
`ACCESSIBE LTD EXHIBIT 1015
`Page 5 of 169
`
`

`

`Expanded Table of Contents
`
`D.2. Document Object Model Level 1 HTML
`Appendix E: ECMA Script Language Binding
`.
`E.1. Document Object Model Level 1 Core
`.
`E.2. Document Object Model Level 1 HTML
`References
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`Index
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`Production Notes (Non-Normative)
`.
`.
`.
`.
`1. The Document Type Definition
`.
`.
`.
`2. The production process
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`3. Object Definitions
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`.
`
`.120
`
`
`.135
`
`.135
`
`.139
`
`.161
`
`.163
`
`.167
`
`.168
`
`.168
`
`.169
`
`6
`
`ACCESSIBE LTD EXHIBIT 1015
`Page 6 of 169
`
`

`

`Copyright Notice
`
`Copyright Notice
`Copyright © 1998 World Wide Web Consortium , (Massachusetts Institute of Technology , Institut
`National de Recherche en Informatique et en Automatique , Keio University ). All Rights Reserved.
`
`Documents on the W3C site are provided by the copyright holders under the following license. By
`obtaining, using and/or copying this document, or the W3C document from which this statement is linked,
`you agree that you have read, understood, and will comply with the following terms and conditions:
`
`Permission to use, copy, and distribute the contents of this document, or the W3C document from which
`this statement is linked, in any medium for any purpose and without fee or royalty is hereby granted,
`provided that you include the following on ALL copies of the document, or portions thereof, that you use:
`
`1. A link or URI to the original W3C document.
`2. The pre-existing copyright notice of the original author, if it doesn’t exist, a notice of the form:
`"Copyright © World Wide Web Consortium , (Massachusetts Institute of Technology , Institut
`National de Recherche en Informatique et en Automatique , Keio University ). All Rights Reserved."
`3. If it exists, the STATUS of the W3C document.
`
`When space permits, inclusion of the full text of this NOTICE should be provided. In addition, credit
`shall be attributed to the copyright holders for any software, documents, or other items or products that
`you create pursuant to the implementation of the contents of this document, or any portion thereof.
`
`No right to create modifications or derivatives is granted pursuant to this license.
`
`THIS DOCUMENT IS PROVIDED "AS IS," AND COPYRIGHT HOLDERS MAKE NO
`REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT
`LIMITED TO, WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
`PURPOSE, NON-INFRINGEMENT, OR TITLE; THAT THE CONTENTS OF THE
`DOCUMENT ARE SUITABLE FOR ANY PURPOSE; NOR THAT THE IMPLEMENTATION
`OF SUCH CONTENTS WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY THIRD PARTY PATENTS,
`COPYRIGHTS, TRADEMARKS OR OTHER RIGHTS.
`
`COPYRIGHT HOLDERS WILL NOT BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, SPECIAL
`OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF ANY USE OF THE DOCUMENT OR
`THE PERFORMANCE OR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CONTENTS THEREOF.
`
`The name and trademarks of copyright holders may NOT be used in advertising or publicity pertaining to
`this document or its contents without specific, written prior permission. Title to copyright in this
`document will at all times remain with copyright holders.
`
`7
`
`ACCESSIBE LTD EXHIBIT 1015
`Page 7 of 169
`
`

`

`Copyright Notice
`
`8
`
`ACCESSIBE LTD EXHIBIT 1015
`Page 8 of 169
`
`

`

`What is the Document Object Model?
`
`What is the Document Object Model?
`Editors
`Jonathan Robie, Texcel Research
`
`9
`
`ACCESSIBE LTD EXHIBIT 1015
`Page 9 of 169
`
`

`

`Introduction
`
`Introduction
`
`The Document Object Model (DOM) is an application programming interface (API) for HTML and XML
`documents. It defines the logical structure of documents and the way a document is accessed and
`manipulated. In the DOM specification, the term "document" is used in the broad sense - increasingly,
`XML is being used as a way of representing many different kinds of information that may be stored in
`diverse systems, and much of this would traditionally be seen as data rather than as documents.
`Nevertheless, XML presents this data as documents, and the DOM may be used to manage this data.
`
`With the Document Object Model, programmers can build documents, navigate their structure, and add,
`modify, or delete elements and content. Anything found in an HTML or XML document can be accessed,
`changed, deleted, or added using the Document Object Model, with a few exceptions - in particular, the
`DOM interfaces for the XML internal and external subsets have not yet been specified.
`
`As a W3C specification, one important objective for the Document Object Model is to provide a standard
`programming interface that can be used in a wide variety of environments and applications. The DOM is
`designed to be used with any programming language. In order to provide a precise, language-independent
`specification of the DOM interfaces, we have chosen to define the specifications in OMG IDL, as defined
`in the CORBA 2.2 specification. In addition to the OMG IDL specification, we provide language bindings
`for Java and ECMAScript (an industry-standard scripting language based on JavaScript and JScript).
`Note: OMG IDL is used only as a language-independent and implementation-neutral way to specify
`interfaces. Various other IDLs could have been used. In general, IDLs are designed for specific
`computing environments. The Document Object Model can be implemented in any computing
`environment, and does not require the object binding runtimes generally associated with such IDLs.
`
`What the Document Object Model is
`
`The DOM is a programming API for documents. It closely resembles the structure of the documents it
`models. For instance, consider this table, taken from an HTML document:
`
` <TABLE>
` <TBODY>
` <TR>
` <TD>Shady Grove</TD>
` <TD>Aeolian</TD>
` </TR>
` <TR>
` <TD>Over the River, Charlie</TD>
` <TD>Dorian</TD>
` </TR>
` </TBODY>
` </TABLE>
`
`The DOM represents this table like this:
`
`10
`
`ACCESSIBE LTD EXHIBIT 1015
`Page 10 of 169
`
`

`

`What the Document Object Model is
`
`DOM representation of the example table
`
`In the DOM, documents have a logical structure which is very much like a tree; to be more precise, it is
`like a "forest" or "grove", which can contain more than one tree. However, the DOM does not specify that
`documents must be implemented as a tree or a grove, nor does it specify how the relationships among
`objects be implemented. The DOM is a logical model that may be implemented in any convenient manner.
`In this specification, we use the term structure model to describe the tree-like representation of a
`document; we specifically avoid terms like "tree" or "grove" in order to avoid implying a particular
`implementation. One important property of DOM structure models is structural isomorphism: if any two
`Document Object Model implementations are used to create a representation of the same document, they
`will create the same structure model, with precisely the same objects and relationships.
`
`The name "Document Object Model" was chosen because it is an "object model" in the traditional object
`oriented design sense: documents are modeled using objects, and the model encompasses not only the
`structure of a document, but also the behavior of a document and the objects of which it is composed. In
`other words, the nodes in the above diagram do not represent a data structure, they represent objects,
`which have functions and identity. As an object model, the DOM identifies:
`
`the interfaces and objects used to represent and manipulate a document
`the semantics of these interfaces and objects - including both behavior and attributes
`the relationships and collaborations among these interfaces and objects
`
`The structure of SGML documents has traditionally been represented by an abstract data model, not by an
`object model. In an abstract data model, the model is centered around the data. In object oriented
`programming languages, the data itself is encapsulated in objects that hide the data, protecting it from
`direct external manipulation. The functions associated with these objects determine how the objects may
`be manipulated, and they are part of the object model.
`
`The Document Object Model currently consists of two parts, DOM Core and DOM HTML. The DOM
`Core represents the functionality used for XML documents, and also serves as the basis for DOM HTML.
`A compliant implementation of the DOM must implement all of the fundamental interfaces in the Core
`chapter with the semantics as defined. Further, it must implement at least one of the HTML DOM and the
`
`11
`
`ACCESSIBE LTD EXHIBIT 1015
`Page 11 of 169
`
`

`

`What the Document Object Model is not
`
`extended (XML) interfaces with the semantics as defined.
`
`What the Document Object Model is not
`
`This section is designed to give a more precise understanding of the DOM by distinguishing it from other
`systems that may seem to be like it.
`
`Although the Document Object Model was strongly influenced by "Dynamic HTML", in Level 1, it
`does not implement all of "Dynamic HTML". In particular, events have not yet been defined. Level 1
`is designed to lay a firm foundation for this kind of functionality by providing a robust, flexible
`model of the document itself.
`The Document Object Model is not a binary specification. DOM programs written in the same
`language will be source code compatible across platforms, but the DOM does not define any form of
`binary interoperability.
`The Document Object Model is not a way of persisting objects to XML or HTML. Instead of
`specifying how objects may be represented in XML, the DOM specifies how XML and HTML
`documents are represented as objects, so that they may be used in object oriented programs.
`The Document Object Model is not a set of data structures, it is an object model that specifies
`interfaces. Although this document contains diagrams showing parent/child relationships, these are
`logical relationships defined by the programming interfaces, not representations of any particular
`internal data structures.
`The Document Object Model does not define "the true inner semantics" of XML or HTML. The
`semantics of those languages are defined by W3C Recommendations for these languages. The DOM
`is a programming model designed to respect these semantics. The DOM does not have any
`ramifications for the way you write XML and HTML documents; any document that can be written
`in these languages can be represented in the DOM.
`The Document Object Model, despite its name, is not a competitor to the Component Object Model
`(COM). COM, like CORBA, is a language independent way to specify interfaces and objects; the
`DOM is a set of interfaces and objects designed for managing HTML and XML documents. The
`DOM may be implemented using language-independent systems like COM or CORBA; it may also
`be implemented using language-specific bindings like the Java or ECMAScript bindings specified in
`this document.
`
`Where the Document Object Model came from
`
`The DOM originated as a specification to allow JavaScript scripts and Java programs to be portable
`among Web browsers. "Dynamic HTML" was the immediate ancestor of the Document Object Model,
`and it was originally thought of largely in terms of browsers. However, when the DOM Working Group
`was formed at W3C, it was also joined by vendors in other domains, including HTML or XML editors and
`document repositories. Several of these vendors had worked with SGML before XML was developed; as a
`result, the DOM has been influenced by SGML Groves and the HyTime standard. Some of these vendors
`had also developed their own object models for documents in order to provide an API for SGML/XML
`editors or document repositories, and these object models have also influenced the DOM.
`
`12
`
`ACCESSIBE LTD EXHIBIT 1015
`Page 12 of 169
`
`

`

`Entities and the DOM Core
`
`Entities and the DOM Core
`
`In the fundamental DOM interfaces, there are no objects representing entities. Numeric character
`references, and references to the pre-defined entities in HTML and XML, are replaced by the single
`character that makes up the entity’s replacement. For example, in:
`
` <p>This is a dog &amp; a cat</p>
`
`the "&amp;" will be replaced by the character "&", and the text in the P element will form a single
`continuous sequence of characters. Since numeric character references and pre-defined entities are not
`recognized as such in CDATA sections, or the SCRIPT and STYLE elements in HTML, they are not
`replaced by the single character they appear to refer to. If the example above were enclosed in a CDATA
`section, the "&amp;" would not be replaced by "&"; neither would the <p> be recognized as a start tag.
`The representation of general entities, both internal and external, are defined within the extended (XML)
`interfaces of the Level 1 specification.
`
`Note: When a DOM representation of a document is serialized as XML or HTML text, applications will
`need to check each character in text data to see if it needs to be escaped using a numeric or pre-defined
`entity. Failing to do so could result in invalid HTML or XML. Also, implementations should be aware of
`the fact that serialization into a character encoding ("charset") that does not fully cover ISO 10646 may
`fail if there are characters in markup or CDATA sections that are not present in the encoding.
`
`DOM Interfaces and DOM Implementations
`
`The DOM specifies interfaces which may be used to manage XML or HTML documents. It is important
`to realize that these interfaces are an abstraction - much like "abstract base classes" in C++, they are a
`means of specifying a way to access and manipulate an application’s internal representation of a
`document. Interfaces do not imply a particular concrete implementation. Each DOM application is free to
`maintain documents in any convenient representation, as long as the interfaces shown in this specification
`are supported. Some DOM implementations will be existing programs that use the DOM interfaces to
`access software written long before the DOM specification existed. Therefore, the DOM is designed to
`avoid implementation dependencies; in particular,
`
`1. Attributes defined in the IDL do not imply concrete objects which must have specific data members -
`in the language bindings, they are translated to a pair of get()/set() functions, not to a data member.
`(Read-only functions have only a get() function in the language bindings).
`2. DOM applications may provide additional interfaces and objects not found in this specification and
`still be considered DOM compliant.
`3. Because we specify interfaces and not the actual objects that are to be created, the DOM can not
`know what constructors to call for an implementation. In general, DOM users call the createXXX()
`methods on the Document class to create document structures, and DOM implementations create
`their own internal representations of these structures in their implementations of the createXXX()
`functions.
`
`13
`
`ACCESSIBE LTD EXHIBIT 1015
`Page 13 of 169
`
`

`

`Limitations of Level 1
`
`Limitations of Level 1
`
`The DOM Level 1 specification is intentionally limited to those methods needed to represent and
`manipulate document structure and content. The plan is for future Levels of the DOM specification to
`provide:
`
`1. A structure model for the internal subset and the external subset.
`2. Validation against a schema.
`3. Control for rendering documents via style sheets.
`4. Access control.
`5. Thread-safety.
`6. Events.
`
`14
`
`ACCESSIBE LTD EXHIBIT 1015
`Page 14 of 169
`
`

`

`1. Document Object Model (Core) Level 1
`
`1. Document Object Model (Core) Level 1
`Editors
`Mike Champion, ArborText (from November 20, 1997)
`Steve Byrne, JavaSoft (until November 19, 1997)
`Gavin Nicol, Inso EPS
`Lauren Wood, SoftQuad, Inc.
`
`15
`
`ACCESSIBE LTD EXHIBIT 1015
`Page 15 of 169
`
`

`

`1.1. Overview of the DOM Core Interfaces
`
`1.1. Overview of the DOM Core Interfaces
`
`This section defines a minimal set of objects and interfaces for accessing and manipulating document
`objects. The functionality specified in this section (the Core functionality) should be sufficient to allow
`software developers and web script authors to access and manipulate parsed HTML and XML content
`inside conforming products. The DOM Core API also allows population of a Document [p.22] object
`using only DOM API calls; creating the skeleton Document [p.22] and saving it persistently is left to the
`product that implements the DOM API.
`
`1.1.1. The DOM Structure Model
`
`The DOM presents documents as a hierarchy of Node [p.25] objects that also implement other, more
`specialized interfaces. Some types of nodes may have child nodes of various types, and others are leaf
`nodes that cannot have anything below them in the document structure. The node types, and which node
`types they may have as children, are as follows:
`
`Document [p.22] -- Element [p.38] (maximum of one), ProcessingInstruction [p.46] ,
`Comment [p.43] , DocumentType [p.44]
`DocumentFragment [p.21] -- Element [p.38] , ProcessingInstruction [p.46] ,
`Comment [p.43] , Text [p.42] , CDATASection [p.43] , EntityReference [p.46]
`DocumentType [p.44] -- no children
`EntityReference [p.46] -- Element [p.38] , ProcessingInstruction [p.46] , Comment
`[p.43] , Text [p.42] , CDATASection [p.43] , EntityReference [p.46]
`Element [p.38] -- Element [p.38] , Text [p.42] , Comment [p.43] ,
`ProcessingInstruction [p.46] , CDATASection [p.43] , EntityReference [p.46]
`Attr [p.37] -- Text [p.42] , EntityReference [p.46]
`ProcessingInstruction [p.46] -- no children
`Comment [p.43] -- no children
`Text [p.42] -- no children
`CDATASection [p.43] -- no children
`Entity [p.45] -- Element [p.38] , ProcessingInstruction [p.46] , Comment [p.43] ,
`Text [p.42] , CDATASection [p.43] , EntityReference [p.46]
`Notation [p.44] -- no children
`
`The DOM also specifies a NodeList [p.32] interface to handle ordered lists of Node [p.25] s, such as
`the children of a Node [p.25] , or the elements returned by the Element.getElementsByTagName
`method, and also a NamedNodeMap [p.32] interface to handle unordered sets of nodes referenced by
`their name attribute, such as the attributes of an Element [p.38] . NodeList [p.32] s and
`NamedNodeMap [p.32] s in the DOM are "live", that is, changes to the underlying document structure
`are reflected in all relevant NodeList [p.32] s and NamedNodeMap [p.32] s. For example, if a DOM
`user gets a NodeList [p.32] object containing the children of an Element [p.38] , then subsequently
`adds more children to that element (or removes children, or modifies them), those changes are
`automatically reflected in the NodeList [p.32] without further action on the user’s part. Likewise
`changes to a Node [p.25] in the tree are reflected in all references to that Node [p.25] in NodeList
`[p.32] s and NamedNodeMap [p.32] s.
`
`16
`
`ACCESSIBE LTD EXHIBIT 1015
`Page 16 of 169
`
`

`

`1.1.2. Memory Management
`
`1.1.2. Memory Management
`
`Most of the APIs defined by this specification are interfaces rather than classes. That means that an actual
`implementation need only expose methods with the defined names and specified operation, not actually
`implement classes that correspond directly to the interfaces. This allows the DOM APIs to be
`implemented as a thin veneer on top of legacy applications with their own data structures, or on top of
`newer applications with different class hierarchies. This also means that ordinary constructors (in the Java
`or C++ sense) cannot be used to create DOM objects, since the underlying objects to be constructed may
`have little relationship to the DOM interfaces. The conventional solution to this in object-oriented design
`is to define factory methods that create instances of objects that implement the various interfaces. In the
`DOM Level 1, objects implementing some interface "X" are created by a "createX()" method on the
`Document [p.22] interface; this is because all DOM objects live in the context of a specific Document.
`
`The DOM Level 1 API does not define a standard way to create DOMImplementation [p.20] or
`Document [p.22] objects; actual DOM implementations must provide some proprietary way of
`bootstrapping these DOM interfaces, and then all other objects can be built from the Create methods on
`Document [p.22] (or by various other convenience methods).
`
`The Core DOM APIs are designed to be compatible with a wide range of languages, including both
`general-user scripting languages and the more challenging languages used mostly by professional
`programmers. Thus, the DOM APIs need to operate across a variety of memory management
`philosophies, from language platforms that do not expose memory management to the user at all, through
`those (notably Java) that provide explicit constructors but provide an automatic garbage collection
`mechanism to automatically reclaim unused memory, to those (especially C/C++) that generally require
`the programmer to explicitly allocate object memory, track where it is used, and explicitly free it for
`re-use. To ensure a consistent API across these platforms, the DOM does not address memory
`management issues at all, but instead leaves these for the implementation. Neither of the explicit language
`bindings devised by the DOM Working Group (for ECMAScript and Java) require any memory
`management methods, but DOM bindings for other languages (especially C or C++) probably will require
`such support. These extensions will be the responsibility of those adapting the DOM API to a specific
`language, not the DOM WG.
`
`1.1.3. Naming Conventions
`
`While it would be nice to have attribute and method names that are short, informative, internally
`consistent, and familiar to users of similar APIs, the names also should not clash with the names in legacy
`APIs supported by DOM implementations. Furthermore, both OMG IDL and ECMAScript have
`significant limitations in their ability to disambiguate names from different namespaces that makes it
`difficult to avoid naming conflicts with short, familiar names. So, DOM names tend to be long and quite
`descriptive in order to be unique across all environments.
`
`The Working Group has also attempted to be internally consistent in its use of various terms, even though
`these may not be common distinctions in other APIs. For example, we use the method name "remove"
`when the method changes the structural model, and the method name "delete" when the method gets rid of
`something inside the structure model. The thing that is deleted is not returned. The thing that is removed
`may be returned, when it makes sense to return it.
`
`17
`
`ACCESSIBE LTD EXHIBIT 1015
`Page 17 of 169
`
`

`

`1.1.4. Inheritance vs Flattened Views of the API
`
`1.1.4. Inheritance vs Flattened Views of the API
`
`The DOM Core APIs present two somewhat different sets of interfaces to an XML/HTML document; one
`presenting an "object oriented" approach with a hierarchy of inheritance, and a "simplified" view that
`allows all manipulation to be done via the Node [p.25] interface without requiring casts (in Java and other
`C-like languages) or query interface calls in COM environments. These operations are fairly expensive in
`Java and COM, and the DOM may be used in performance-critical environments, so we allow significant
`functionality using just the Node [p.25] interface. Because many other users will find the inheritance
`hierarchy easier to understand than the "everything is a Node [p.25] " approach to the DOM, we also
`support the full higher-level interfaces for those who prefer a more object-oriented API.
`
`In practice, this means that there is a certain amount of redundancy in the API. The Working Group
`considers the "inheritance" approach the primary view of the API, and the full set of functionality on
`Node [p.25] to be "extra" functionality that users may employ, but that does not eliminate the need for
`methods on other interfaces that an object-oriented analysis would dictate. (Of course, when the O-O
`analysis yields an attribute or method that is identical to one on the Node [p.25] interface, we don’t
`specify a completely redundant one). Thus, even though there is a generic nodeName attribute on the
`Node [p.25] interface, there is still a tagName attribute on the Element [p.38] interface; these two
`attributes must contain the same value, but the Working Group considers it worthwhile to support both,
`given the different constituencies the DOM API must satisfy.
`
`1.1.5. The DOMString type
`
`To ensure interoperability, the DOM specifies the DOMString type as follows:
`
`A

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket