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

RE: Re: DOM's javascript roots (was Re: HaveJDOM / X

• To: "XML Developers List" <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: Re: DOM's javascript roots (was Re: HaveJDOM / XOM / etc. failed?)
• From: "Michael Champion" <michael.champion@h...>
• Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2006 09:18:24 -0700

> CC: xml-dev@l...
> From: robin.berjon@e...
> Subject: Re: DOM's javascript roots (was Re: Have JDOM / XOM / etc. failed?)
> Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2006 15:27:39 +0200
> To: michael.champion@h...
>

> My question had more to do with dropping OMG IDL compatibility, which  
> we're discussing, but since you're back to the DOM, we don't plan on  
> doing more in the Core than:

All these seem quite reasonable IMHO.

> E4X is a nice way of creating DOM structures, and has some limited  
> but very cool navigation features. But it's not a replacement for the  
> whole DOM, there's still too much you can't do with it. I would tend  
> to expect E4X to become more widespread and be used alongside the  
> DOM, but not to replace it.

Fair enough.  My point is that languages with native XML support, the list of which currently starts with E4X but will soon include C# 3.0 and Java "Dolphin", are probably the way the world is moving forward, and the OMG/DOM notion of language neutrality is on the way out.   I would expect the E4X folks to evolve it to do the stuff that people *want* to do in the DOM (which of course may not be everything DOM *can* do).   I would like to see this stuff evolve by competition among the innovators in the scripting, .NET, and Java worlds rather than have W3C or somebody do a design by committee job on it.  Committees are real good at figuring out what is unclear, what is not used, etc. so it's probably a Good Thing that the Web API WG is doing what it is doing to make DOM-based web apps more interoperable.  My only fear is that W3C activity in this space will perpetuate the idea among the Pointy Haired Bosses of the world that DOM is the only safe and proper choice for XML development. 

>
> And something the only reason to live of which is to make portable  
> Web apps possible seems to have a use case huge enough to justify its  
> existence for many years to come. 

Again, this is a laudable goal and (on balance) it's probably a good thing.  I'm just pointing out that there is a downside: There are some alternatives on the web (JSON and E4X come to mind) and we've been talking about the alternatives on the midtier and server that don't get mindshare because they're not PHB-friendly.  This is a problem: Mainstream developers often hate XML because it's so hard to work with, and DOM is usually high on the list of people's "XMLreallysucks" rants.  Overcoming that hurdle, as all sorts of things including E4X, Xlinq, XJ, PHP SimpleXML, etc. try to do, is at least as important as making it easier for XML geeks to write more portable code.

So, OK, euthanasia is premature.   But the poor ol' thing is on life support.  Stabilization is fine, mummification is not.

• Prev by Date: <offtopic /> Is The Web a Reciprocal System
• Next by Date: DOM usage within browsers. vs. 'stand-alone' DOM (was DOM's javascript roots)
• Previous by thread: DOM usage within browsers. vs. 'stand-alone' DOM (was DOM's javascript roots)
• Next by thread: Easier file distribution with XML (Mirrors, P2P, & checksums)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread