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

Re: better (?) than DOM

• From: Robin Berjon <robin@j...>
• To: Manos Batsis <manos_lists@g...>
• Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 13:02:37 +0100

On Feb 23, 2007, at 12:57, Manos Batsis wrote:
> Quoting Robin Berjon <robin@j...>:
>> It seems to be begging for E4X, which is IMHO a lot
>> clearer than the above.
>
> As said in my original email (sent only to Nathan by accident),
> interoperability is, again, the problem :-/

I know, and sorry for being too cursory to be clear. My point was  
more about how if you want to produce XML, why not use... XML! E4X  
requires the browser to be updated, which means it'll be a while  
before it's widely useable, but there are other options that are also  
more readable than method calls nested twelve times. For instance the  
various Javascript templating libraries could come in quite useful  
there I'd say.

--
Robin Berjon
........................................................................
[Definition:] Throughout this specification, the term 'absent' is used
               as a distinguished property value denoting absence.
                         -- XML Schema, part 1
                           (http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#key-null)

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: better (?) than DOM
    • From: "Nathan Young -X \(natyoung - Artizen at Cisco\)" <natyoung@c...>

• References:
  • better (?) than DOM
    • From: "Nathan Young -X \(natyoung - Artizen at Cisco\)" <natyoung@c...>
  • RE: better (?) than DOM
    • From: "Nathan Young -X \(natyoung - Artizen at Cisco\)" <natyoung@c...>
  • Re: better (?) than DOM
    • From: Robin Berjon <robin@j...>
  • Re: better (?) than DOM
    • From: Manos Batsis <manos_lists@g...>