[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: Here's a good question

• From: Tom Bradford <bradford@d...>
• To: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@S...>
• Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 12:45:29 -0700

Good answer.

"Champion, Mike" wrote:
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Tom Bradford [mailto:bradford@d...]
> > Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2001 2:19 PM
> > To: xml-dev@l...
> > Subject:  Here's a good question
> >
> >
> > Why does the DOM [expletive deleted] so badly?  I'll leave the many reasons for the
> > question to your imagination and cumulative experience.
> 
> Uhh, if I didn't know of Tom's impeccable reputation as a man of refined
> manners and subtle eloquence, I might be offended.  But I guess I'll plead
> ignorance and ask for a clarification:  explain what you mean by "[expletive deleted]".
> 
> If it "[expletive deleted]" because it doesn't exploit all the power of Java
> classes/collections/Strings/Lists/etc." ... well, duh, it's
> language-neutral!
> 
> If it "[expletive deleted]" because it's full of kludgy compromises between browsers and
> editors, HTML and XML, trees and lists, clients and servers, and between the
> various competitors who have drafted it ... well, duh! It was written by a
> committee reprsenting all these incompatible viewpoints ... what do you
> expect?
> 
> If it "[expletive deleted]" because it exposes XML 1.0's dirty linen (external parsed
> entities, CDATA sections, the bizarre differences in whitespace processing
> in validating and non-validating parsers, the overwhelming number of ways
> namespaces find to confuse people ... you know my litany) ... I guess the
> DOM [expletive deleted] because life [expletive deleted] :~)
> 
> If it "[expletive deleted]" because things that are obvious in 2001 weren't obvious in
> 1997-1998, well duh! If it continues to [expletive deleted] because the W3C is very
> reluctant to introduce backward incompatibility, that's a good point to
> debate.
> 
> If it "[expletive deleted]" because of all the things it doesn't have ... well, the
> feeling at the time was that a DOM Recommendation that didn't come out in
> time to be supported by IE5 and  (the non-exisitent, but we didn't know that
> at the time) Navigator 5 would be DOA in the Real World.  There seemed to be
> a narrow window of opportunity to get a Dynamic HTML API out in time to be
> supported by the browsers, and an XML API in time to be supported by all the
> XML tools that were being planned. For better or worse, the DOM hit that
> window.
> 
> The DOM (like XML) is not a triumph of elegance; it's a triumph of "if we do
> not hang together, we shall hang separately."  At least the Browser Wars
> were not followed by API Wars. Better a common API that we all love to hate
> than a bazillion contending APIs that carve the Web up into contending
> enclaves of True Believers.
> 
> 
> > Is it all Mike Champion's fault? :)
> 
> Probably.
> 
> All I can say is that the experience has been immensely humbling.  If anyone
> has ideas for a better API that meets DOM's fundamental constraints, that
> would be a very interesting discussion to have here.
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
> initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
> 
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>

-- 
Tom Bradford  The dbXML Group, L.L.C.  http://www.dbxmlgroup.com/
Desktop, Laptop, Settop, Palmtop.  Can your XML database do that?

• References:
  • RE: Here's a good question
    • From: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@S...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Here's a good question
• Next by Date: RE: Has XML run its course?
• Previous by thread: RE: Here's a good question
• Next by thread: RE: Has W3C run its course? (Was: Has XML run its cours e?)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread