• 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: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 16:11:07 -0400
• In-reply-to: <442D94E5.1040702@m...>
• References: <20060331181515.52963.qmail@w...> <26B5424A-181E-4A13-B9DB-4E63AD738AB0@e...> <442D7D27.8090204@m...> <39BC73F5-3EFF-4C4D-81E8-8EEE5344AF25@e...> <442D94E5.1040702@m...>

On Mar 31, 2006, at 3:45 PM, Elliotte Harold wrote:

> Of course. No method overloading. Think createElement,  
> createElementNS, etc. Java and C++ wouldn;t desing an API like that.

FWIW. This is as much an issue of supporting namespaces as anything  
else... they're a wart that shouldn't have made it too.

That said, there were a lot of tradeoffs made, but again, it was a  
case of good enough is good enough for the most part.

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