• To: Tatu Saloranta <cowtowncoder@y...>
• Subject: Re: Have JDOM / XOM / etc. failed? If so, why?
• From: "Oleg A. Paraschenko" <olpa@x...>
• Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 08:59:27 +0400
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <20060403173401.13963.qmail@w...>
• Organization: xmlhack.ru
• References: <20060402193404.37d6047b.olpa@x...><20060403173401.13963.qmail@w...>

Hello,

On Mon, 3 Apr 2006 10:34:01 -0700 (PDT)
Tatu Saloranta <cowtowncoder@y...> wrote:

...
> ...
> > In most applications, the actual DOM implementation
> > is a second
> 
> Geez. Absolute not! Choosing the API may be secondary
> issue, choosing implementation is anything but.
> Otherwise you might just choose, Electric XML over
> Xerces... or something equally silly.

Why "anything but"? If practice show that choice is silly, the
implementation can be replaced.

> 
> -+ Tatu +-


-- 
Oleg Parashchenko  olpa@ http://xmlhack.ru/  XML news in Russian
http://uucode.com/blog/  Generative Programming, XML, TeX, Scheme

• References:
  • Re: Have JDOM / XOM / etc. failed? If so, why?
    • From: "Oleg A. Paraschenko" <olpa@x...>
  • Re: Have JDOM / XOM / etc. failed? If so, why?
    • From: Tatu Saloranta <cowtowncoder@y...>

• Prev by Date: Easier file distribution with XML (Mirrors, P2P, & checksums)
• Next by Date: Re: Validation of missing elements in xml:
• Previous by thread: Re: Have JDOM / XOM / etc. failed? If so, why?
• Next by thread: Re: Have JDOM / XOM / etc. failed? If so, why?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread