• From: Len Bullard <cbullard@h...>
• To: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
• Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 21:40:19 -0600

Tim Bray wrote:
> 
> And if a browser doesn't support XML+DOM, it doesn't support XML. -Tim

Nice thought but isn't it more like XML+DOM(HTML), XML+DOM(SVG),
XML+DOM(VRML), 
in other words, as far as I can tell watching the Great Children Node
War, 
DOM can be thought of as optional as long as the application language
API 
is complete.  The SAI for VRML according to the last 
vote, must be standalone and must operate identically over both 
current encodings.

So is DOM really required for XML 1.0, or is that a political position 
about implementations?

umm... that subject line looks sort of... alternative.

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: Re: Geoworks and their patent
• Next by Date: Re: Geoworks and their patent
• Previous by thread: RE: Alternatives to the W3C (was Re: Alternatives to the W3C)
• Next by thread: MODERATION [was: RE: Alternatives to the W3C (was Re: Alternatives to the W3C)]
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread