[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: Underwhelmed (WAS: XOM micro tutorial)
9/20/2002 3:50:23 PM, "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...> wrote: >It could be. Generally, something that is simpler >and easier to explain has a way of winning in an >ecology of competing codes. Well, yeah, but IMHO XOM gets its simplicity largely by avoiding the nasty bits of XML that the DOM flounders through and gets itself dirty in the process. I'm thinking specifically of non-namespaced well-formed XML, "syntax sugar" such as CDATA sections, all the stuff that DTDs inflict on the data model such as entity declarations, entity references, default attribute values, and probably other horrors that I've managed to blissfully forget. Now I for one would be very very happy to see all this stuff deprecated, or moved to some "XML syntax sugar preprocessor" spec, and then we could all build from a nice, clean, XPath-compatible data model. If XOM can somehow promote that agenda, I'm all for it! I also appreciated the point that John Cowan made about XOM's conceptual integrity. As we all know, W3C DOM got the way it is partly because it is the proverbial camel designed by a committee. It's about 5 years old now, and it's time for someone to come along and refactor it. Or better yet, since the notion of interoperable API standards is so unfashionable these days, let a hundred refactorizations of DOM/JDOM/dom4j/proprietary APIs bloom, create an ecology of competing codes, and let Father Darwin sort them out.
|
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
|