So, is there a legit use for this? Why would I need to rename a node?

he, caillon, isn't it a bit much to set features on fire instead of doing some testing/thinking?
First principals, and now the DOM?
tsktsktsk.
This function might cause crashes when called during
an XSLT transformation. Esp. in the case when you
have to recreate the node.
Do you have stuff like renaming a foo:bar into
an xhtml:script or xhtml:style working yet?

There are quite a few semantic uses for it. I've seen some scripts that keep several nodes with different names available and then hides/shows them with the CSS OM. Or others that remove a node from the tree and then insert another almost exact copy in the same place.

As far as setting features on fire, if I suspect they will break for a particular class of Element, I will disable this feature for it. Although I suspect that if a user follows the instructions the spec gives for what to do in the case where simply modifying node info isn't possible, things will probably break anyway.

what u are talking about ? I don't think it's so. Try to be more careful

You Must Promise. To call your mother, to help old ladies cross the road, and to turn your cell phone off at the movies.

The simple fact is that, when all other factors are equal, where will consumers spend their money? I believe that in the long run, the best looking, easiest-to-use applications will also be the most successful. I think that's why Apple encourages developers to write programs that are 100 percent Aqua-compliant.

Adopt Sheets. I really like the use of Sheets in OS X. The use of Sheets lets me know which window my dialogue belongs to without hijacking my system.

Dock Animation. Sometimes animating icons in the dock can be useful in communicating the status of the system or application.

Adopt Sheets. I really like the use of Sheets in OS X. The use of Sheets lets me know which window my dialogue belongs to without hijacking my system.

For example, if you see an AIM window peeking out from behind your browser and you click on it, that window will come to the front, but the main application window will not. The Mail.app/Activity Viewer is another example. The Aqua system of layers works well in many instances, but not in all. Thank goodness that the Dock is always there to come to the rescue. I know that clicking on an application icon in the Dock will always result in not only the application coming to the front, but also any non-minimized windows associated with it. And if the application is active but no windows are open, clicking on the Dock icon should create a new window in that application.

To help you become a good Aqua citizen, Apple has created a few guidelines. I've put together a brief overview of them, and we'll be tackling many of them in the months to come.

To put my money where my mouth is, in each new article I'll build a hypothetical application that illustrates the guidelines I'm covering. Today's application is called "Paint" and will be based on the photo-illustrative icon I created in my last article. Together we will complete each step, and by the end of the project we should have a well-designed, 95%-100% Aqua-compliant application. I'll leave some room for personal preferences and the fact that Apple changes the OS every few months.

In building your amazing Aqua application, one of the most important things to consider is the Dock. There are three things your app needs to be "Dock Compliant." Now, I write this knowing that the Dock will be going through some major changes soon, but for the most part, these should still hold true.

But limit your animations to whatever is required to communicate the necessary information. Avoid annoying animations that discourage ease of use. Ask yourself, "What do I need to show the user, and what is the cleanest way possible to achieve that?" A good example is the Mail application for Mac OS X. Whenever a new message arrives, the Dock icon changes appearance to indicate a changed state.

Wonderful work. I enjoyed read your site a lot.

casinos