• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: A multi-step approach on defining object-oriented nature of DOM
• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 14:10:41 -0400
• In-reply-to: <3D63D550.4090904@t...>

Tim Bray writes:
> Thanks Amy.  This is more useful than the previous 875 posts
> comprising mostly metaphysical whining.

Is that better or worse than philosophy and aesthetics?

After four years of it being painfully obvious that this spec is a
hideous mess, I'd think we might finally be past "metaphysical whining"
claims.  Haven't you noticed the impact this nightmare has had on
practically every W3C activity from DOM to XHTML?

I wish I could believe that anything in Amy's excellent post was
actually new.  Unfortunately, it's the same sort of stuff that we've
discussed forever, and which might have been avoided if these issues had
been taken seriously a long long time ago.

Nothing left but the screaming, I guess.


-------------
Simon St.Laurent - SSL is my TLA
http://simonstl.com may be my URI
http://monasticxml.org may be my ascetic URI
urn:oid:1.3.6.1.4.1.6320 is another possibility altogether

• References:
  • Re: A multi-step approach on defining object-oriented natureof DOM
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>

• Prev by Date: Re: A multi-step approach on defining object-oriented natureof DOM
• Next by Date: Re: A multi-step approach on defining object-oriented nature
• Previous by thread: Re: A multi-step approach on defining object-oriented natureof DOM
• Next by thread: Re: A multi-step approach on defining object-oriented nature
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread