• From: Ronald Bourret <rpbourret@r...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 15:26:17 -0700

Tom Bradford wrote:
> 
> Why does the DOM [expletive deleted] so badly?  I'll leave the many reasons for the
> question to your imagination and cumulative experience.

I have a hard time using the word "[expletive deleted]" with the DOM. Admittedly, it
lacks the elegance of SAX 1.0, but I found it almost trivial to learn
and have had very few problems, except for the omissions I posted the
other day (and the fact that the interfaces aren't listed in a
discernable order in the spec -- maybe alphabetic would help?)

The DOM also is one of the few XML specs that is modularized, a thing I
am very, very happy about.

> Is it all Mike Champion's fault? :)

Probably. If we just had more people like him to blame...

-- Ron

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: Here's a good question
    • From: Don Park <donpark@d...>

• References:
  • Here's a good question
    • From: Tom Bradford <bradford@d...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Has XML run its course?
• Next by Date: Re: Instantiating XML code from XML schema - Best practice(andwhat pratice)?
• Previous by thread: Re: Here's a good question
• Next by thread: RE: Here's a good question
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread