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

Re: DOM's javascript roots (was Re: Have JDOM / XOM

• To: XML Developers List <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: DOM's javascript roots (was Re: Have JDOM / XOM / etc. failed?)
• From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>
• Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 16:03:09 -0400
• In-reply-to: <39BC73F5-3EFF-4C4D-81E8-8EEE5344AF25@e...>
• References: <20060331181515.52963.qmail@w...> <26B5424A-181E-4A13-B9DB-4E63AD738AB0@e...> <442D7D27.8090204@m...> <39BC73F5-3EFF-4C4D-81E8-8EEE5344AF25@e...>

> On Mar 31, 2006, at 21:04, Elliotte Harold wrote:
>> Robin Berjon wrote:
>>> No, I don't think that's true. If the DOM had been created for  
>>> Javascript it would be a *lot* less horrible than all the hoops  
>>> it had to jump through to support utterly braindead languages  
>>> like Java.
>>
>> The mistake was not anyone language's. It was trying to be all  
>> things to all languages. That approach is doomed to failure.
>

FWIW. I've been involved in XML/SGML API design since before XML  
existed, have looked at the various alternative to DOM, and IMHO none  
of them are so much better that they are compelling (except some of  
the tools in the functional programming world).

That said, I rarely use DOM anyway: I do almost everything in SAX...

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: DOM's javascript roots (was Re: Have JDOM / XOM / etc. failed?)
    • From: Tatu Saloranta <cowtowncoder@y...>

• Prev by Date: Re: DOM's javascript roots (was Re: Have JDOM / XOM / etc. failed?)
• Next by Date: Re: DOM's javascript roots (was Re: Have JDOM / XOM / etc. failed?)
• Previous by thread: Re: DOM's javascript roots (was Re: Have JDOM / XOM / etc. failed?)
• Next by thread: Re: DOM's javascript roots (was Re: Have JDOM / XOM / etc. failed?)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread