• To: Michael Champion <michael.champion@h...>
• Subject: Re: DOM's javascript roots (was Re: Have JDOM/ XOM / etc. failed?)
• From: Robert Koberg <rob@k...>
• Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2006 20:23:19 -0400
• Cc: XML Developers List <xml-dev@l...>
• In-reply-to: <BAY107-W421A002FC1591FC143BEC99CB0@p...>
• References: <BAY107-W421A002FC1591FC143BEC99CB0@p...>
• User-agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (Windows/20051201)

Michael Champion wrote:
> Seriously, DOM-the-standard's only reason to live these days is to make 
> portable browser -- oops, sorry "Web 2.0" -- apps easier to build, 
> right?  E4X seems like the way forward there, not DOM.

Make it happen big boy...

 > What am I
 > missing here?

ufff... must be fun...

• References:
  • RE: Re: DOM's javascript roots (was Re: HaveJDOM / XOM / etc. failed?)
    • From: "Michael Champion" <michael.champion@h...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Re: DOM's javascript roots (was Re: HaveJDOM / XOM / etc. failed?)
• Next by Date: Re: DOM's javascript roots (was Re: Have JDOM / XOM / etc. failed?)
• Previous by thread: RE: Re: DOM's javascript roots (was Re: HaveJDOM / XOM / etc. failed?)
• Next by thread: Re: DOM's javascript roots (was Re: Have JDOM / XOM / etc. failed?)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread