• From: David Brownell <db@E...>
• To: John Cowan <cowan@l...>
• Date: Mon, 02 Nov 1998 09:20:51 -0800

John Cowan wrote:
> 
> DOM Level 1 is an ugly mess, and the only justification for it
> is to keep Netscape and Microsoft from implementing even uglier
> incompatible DOMs.

I think everyone recognizes some of the compromises that went
into DOM, and has a list of some mistakes they'd fix.  But I
don't think there's a good consensus on which things are mistakes
rather than features ...

To put it differently:  is there really room for another API
to represent XML structure?

I tend to think that DOM, warts and all, is "good enough" for
most purposes.  And for those other purposes, I suspect that
no standard API could suit.

- Dave

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i...
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: CDATA by any other name... (was The raw and the cooked)
    • From: Paul Prescod <papresco@t...>

• References:
  • RE: CDATA by any other name... (was The raw and the cooked)
    • From: "Lauren Wood" <lauren@s...>
  • Re: CDATA by any other name... (was The raw and the cooked)
    • From: Paul Prescod <papresco@t...>
  • Re: CDATA by any other name... (was The raw and the cooked)
    • From: John Cowan <cowan@l...>

• Prev by Date: Re: DTD,s
• Next by Date: Web pages in non-Roman scripts
• Previous by thread: Re: CDATA by any other name... (was The raw and the cooked)
• Next by thread: Re: CDATA by any other name... (was The raw and the cooked)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread