• To: XML Developers List <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: DOM's javascript roots (was Re: Have JDOM / XOM / etc. failed?)
• From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>
• Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 00:42:09 -0400
• In-reply-to: <20060425202926.96519.qmail@w...>
• References: <20060425202926.96519.qmail@w...>

On Apr 25, 2006, at 4:29 PM, Tatu Saloranta wrote:

> Namespace handling is an absolute mess, and
> alternatives I have tried (JDOM, XOM) all implement in
> less messy way, and significantly so.

FWIW. Namespace support was 'tacked on' to DOM, just as it was to  
XML. It was totally superfluous then and has simply complicated  
things since IMHO. DOM is a good case in point.

>> That said, I rarely use DOM anyway: I do almost
>> everything in SAX...
>
> That's pretty hard-core. ;-)
> (due to SAX imposed "involuntary
> inversion-of-control")

Not really... how often do you *really* want the XML in DOM in your  
application? I very rarely do... though I use XML as a storage format  
a lot.

• References:
  • Re: DOM's javascript roots (was Re: Have JDOM / XOM / etc. failed?)
    • From: Tatu Saloranta <cowtowncoder@y...>

• Prev by Date: Re: DOM usage within browsers. vs. 'stand-alone' DOM (was DOM's javascript roots)
• Next by Date: Re: Inversion of control (was: DOM's javascript roots (was Re: Have JDOM / XOM / etc. failed?))
• Previous by thread: Re: Inversion of control (was: DOM's javascript roots (was Re: Have JDOM / XOM / etc. failed?))
• Next by thread: Re: DOM's javascript roots (was Re: Have JDOM / XOM / etc. failed?)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread