• To: dareo@m... (Dare Obasanjo)
• Subject: Re: Underwhelmed (WAS: XOM micro tutorial)
• From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
• Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 11:12:25 -0400 (EDT)
• Cc: miles@m... (Miles Sabin), xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <8BD7226E07DDFF49AF5EF4030ACE0B7E07A9727A@r...> from "Dare Obasanjo" at Sep 20, 2002 09:13:31 PM

Dare Obasanjo scripsit:

> The minus points after taking a cursory glance at it and comparing
> against the DOM I am most familar with (the one in the .NET Framework)
>  - No XPath support [this makes makes it a non-starter in my book]

XOM is currently pre-1.0 (in Open Source terms) or 1.0 (in proprietary terms).
XPath support is planned.

>  - Doesn't preserve lexical fidelity 

What do you lack that you want?

>  - Can't insert XML strings directly into the tree 

Good point, but XOM specifically expects certain things to be done
by 3rd-party classes, and this may turn out to be one of them.

> Perhaps people like me were the wrong audience and the
> announcement was meant for Java folks?

I labeled it as such, certainly.

-- 
John Cowan          http://www.ccil.org/~cowan        jcowan@r...
To say that Bilbo's breath was taken away is no description at all.  There are
no words left to express his staggerment, since Men changed the language that
they learned of elves in the days when all the world was wonderful. --The Hobbit

• References:
  • RE: Underwhelmed (WAS: XOM micro tutorial)
    • From: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: InnerXml is like printf (WAS: Underwhelmed)
• Next by Date: Re: InnerXml is like printf (WAS: Underwhelmed)
• Previous by thread: RE: Underwhelmed (WAS: XOM micro tutorial)
• Next by thread: RE: Underwhelmed (WAS: XOM micro tutorial)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread