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

Re: Underwhelmed (WAS: XOM micro tutorial)

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Underwhelmed (WAS: XOM micro tutorial)
• From: Arjun Ray <aray@n...>
• Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 04:22:32 +0000
• In-reply-to: <DLA7VPJETRTO53SM41HD9JGRQGA3X.3d8ce038@MChamp>
• References: <p04330107b9b2685a5a55@[192.168.254.4]> <DLA7VPJETRTO53SM41HD9JGRQGA3X.3d8ce038@MChamp>

Mike Champion <mc@x...> wrote:

| I can understand the desire for implementers to choose one or the other, 
| and can appreciate the conceptual integrity of a "pure tree" view.

An essential part of the conceptual integrity is that it doesn't really
matter what the "pure tree" *looks* like.

| On the other hand, as a user of this stuff I fequently latch onto 
|   x.innerXML = "<example>Raw DOM is <b>too</b> tedious</example>";

If I asked, why couldn't that be something like 

    x.innerXML = (example){Raw DOM is (b){too} tedious} ;

will you at once say, "But those aren't tags!!!" ?

This is where conceptual integrity comes in.  Imagine a world where you
didn't know know what tags looked like and more importantly, you didn't
even have to care.

The more you lean on perceptual crutches like InnerXML, the farther you
stay away from a conceptual world where you can focus on the what needs to
be done without sweating the how.

• References:
  • RE: Underwhelmed (WAS: XOM micro tutorial)
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>
  • Re: RE: Underwhelmed (WAS: XOM micro tutorial)
    • From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>

• Prev by Date: More on integrating XML and programming languages
• Next by Date: Dilemma: dot notation or attribute
• Previous by thread: Re: RE: Underwhelmed (WAS: XOM micro tutorial)
• Next by thread: Re: Underwhelmed (WAS: XOM micro tutorial)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread