[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] SV: DOM 2 and .NET
My two cents, just for the record (comments inlined): In the DOM Test Suites Framework (http://www.w3.org/DOM/Test/) It is precisely our ambition to write as comprehensive a collection of tests as possible, in order to help implementors keep track of their product's support for the various DOM specifications. As the DOM TS is a publically developed framework, in which we want to guarantee the relevance and correctness of the tests, I kindly invite anyone interested in taking part in both developing tests and helping to ensure that they indeed test relevant parts of the specification; please visit the link above for details. /D. Dimitriadis, W3C DOM WG representative to the DOM TS framework --- Now, if we are talking about the *other* DOM (the one used for manipulating HTML in a web browser) that predates XML DOM, it is another story. There is the Microsoft DHTML DOM, then in IE5+ there is partial support for W3C DHTML DOM, and same issue in Netscape -- in Netscape 6 there is partial support for W3C DOM that is partially disjoint from the support in IE5+, and previous versions of Netscape have a DOM that is Netscape specific. Basically, it is so complicated to write cross-platform DHTML that many people would rather just use Flash. [dd] I'd say that there is only _one_ (official) HTML DOM, namely the W3C HTML DOM. Is has drawn from the experiences made in DHTML, but is _not_ a DHTML DOM and does not predate the W3C XML DOM as it forms part of the same specification (http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-DOM-Level-1-19981001/level-one-html.html). > money just to take the responsibility of an open web on my shoulders, > because vendors don't play fair. These vendors are actually making my > life harder. They offer me non-compliant ways to make my work easy. Wow. > And if I choose them, I either have to promote only their side of the > bank, or work twice as hard to promote all. They are all blackmailing > me, while earning from me for pushing their platform. This is perhaps an unfair characterization. You can think of standards/specs as treaties between competitors (individuals and companies) for the benefit of the people who use their products. In other words, what makes it into the spec is what all of the competitors can agree on. It's unrealistic to think that a spec or standard could list every feature that you might ever want. It's equally unrealistic to think that the competitors sitting around the standardization table would all agree on every single feature that they think their users will want. Competitors disagree on certain things, and different users want different things (and that is a very good thing by the way). So the spec just documents the lowest common denominator that everyone can agree upon. [dd] I think Manos' point (and many other developers' with him) is that they do not care particularly about politics (as far as agreeing on subsets and lowest common denominators is concerned); they would rahter have a particular set of features they could presuppose would be supported on different platforms that in turn allows for the portability of their code (at least that is what most comments I receive in my work point towards).
|
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
|