> Brad Chapman wrote: >> Can we either use "locus/loci" in the definition layer, or think >> up a new term that won't clash with DOM so much? Jeff wrote: > This is a 'simple' namespace problem, which can usually be solved by > appending > the application's name. So, instead of 'node', you can use... > > vshnode Well, I wasn't so worried about the namespace problem as the problem with clarity of code. For instance, let's take this current snippet o' code from the middle: middle_node = dom_tree.createElement('middle') dom_tree.appendChild(middle_node) success_node = dom_tree.createElement('success') middle_node.appendChild(success_node) locus_node = dom_tree.createElement('locus') locus_node.setAttribute('id', locus_id) locus_node.setAttribute('num_inputs', str(num_inputs)) locus_node.setAttribute('num_outputs', str(num_outputs)) locus_node.setAttribute('gui_name', gui_name) success_node.appendChild(locus_node) I think you can see the problem if I started referring to a locus as a dlnode (dlnode_node = ...). The additional problem is that I am redoing the middle code and am thinking of organizing the loci structure in a DOM-like manner. Ie. loci can have parent loci (the container or composite locus holding them) which will make things additionally confusing. I just want to see the code be as clear as possible and the node/node stuff is confusing, IMO. > BTW, about the BL nodes, I was thinking that since these always have an > Internet location, they could be referred to as a node of type 'locus'. I'm confused by what you are talking about here. Do you mean the 'GMS' layer? Brad