• From: Len Bullard <cbullard@h...>
• To: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
• Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 18:25:38 -0600

Tim Bray wrote:
> 
> At 09:40 PM 1/23/00 -0600, Len Bullard wrote:
> >So is DOM really required for XML 1.0, or is that a political position
> >about implementations?
> 
> There is no *point* to supporting XML in the browser if you don't
> support the DOM.  If all you want is to display nice-looking stuff
> to humans, HTML does an excellent job of that. -Tim

And as I point out, supports varies application language by application 
language.  As has been asked elsewhere, who would bother using 
the rawDOM since "it is an implementer's tool, not a content 
developer's tool".

Data structures: underneath the thin veneer, all apps have their 
own.  So, should we make resource intensive applications take 
the penalty of being in the same box as a text display engine?

len



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/ or CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
Unsubscribe by posting to majordom@i... the message
unsubscribe xml-dev  (or)
unsubscribe xml-dev your-subscribed-email@your-subscribed-address

Please note: New list subscriptions now closed in preparation for transfer to OASIS.

• References:
  • Re: Alternatives to the W3C (was Re: Alternatives to the W3C)
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>

• Prev by Date: RSS 0.92???
• Next by Date: Re: [OT] Re: Geoworks and their patent
• Previous by thread: What's this XML stuff anyway? (was Re: Alternatives to the W3C)
• Next by thread: let's get back to work...
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread