Re: Alternatives to the W3C (was Re: Alternatives to the W3C)
Tim Bray wrote: > > At 09:40 PM 1/23/00 -0600, Len Bullard wrote: > >So is DOM really required for XML 1.0, or is that a political position > >about implementations? > > There is no *point* to supporting XML in the browser if you don't > support the DOM. If all you want is to display nice-looking stuff > to humans, HTML does an excellent job of that. -Tim And as I point out, supports varies application language by application language. As has been asked elsewhere, who would bother using the rawDOM since "it is an implementer's tool, not a content developer's tool". Data structures: underneath the thin veneer, all apps have their own. So, should we make resource intensive applications take the penalty of being in the same box as a text display engine? len xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i... Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ or CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1 Unsubscribe by posting to majordom@i... the message unsubscribe xml-dev (or) unsubscribe xml-dev your-subscribed-email@your-subscribed-address Please note: New list subscriptions now closed in preparation for transfer to OASIS.
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format