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

Re: Alternatives to the W3C (was Re: Alternatives to the W3C)

• From: "Robert Hanson" <rhanson@b...>
• To: <xml-dev@i...>, "Tim Bray" <tbray@t...>
• Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 09:53:38 -0500

Wow, I don't know if I can disagree enough with that.  What if the goal isn't
to support XML in the browser, but instead is used for indexing, and other
back-end tasks?  And what if this same information is also accessible through
a browser with CSS?

For instance, we have in in-house knowledge base.  This knowledge base
contains information that needs to be searchable by perhaps a part number.
Parts of this knowledge base also include manuals that are intended for
distribution as printed material (using XSLT).  Other parts are indexes
generated by a back end application which does use DOM.  And besides that, the
support technician needs access to this information... so with XML and CSS in
the browser, I am all set.  Why do I need DOM support in my browser for to do
all of this?

I am not disagreeing that DOM support will be needed in the browser for lots
of applications, but I disagree that there is no point to supporting XML
without DOM.

Robert

----- Original Message -----
From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>


> 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



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.

• References:
  • Re: Alternatives to the W3C (was Re: Alternatives to the W3C)
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Clearer W3C Specs (was Re: XML Information Set is seeding impenetrable language; reconsider?)
• Next by Date: Attribute normalisation and character entities
• Previous by thread: Re: Alternatives to the W3C (was Re: Alternatives to the W3C)
• Next by thread: What's this XML stuff anyway? (was Re: Alternatives to the W3C)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread