• From: "Robert Koberg" <rob@k...>
• To: "xml-dev@l..." <xml-dev@l...>
• Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 07:33:27 -0500

On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 07:02:37 -0500, Robin Berjon <robin@j...> wrote:

> On Feb 23, 2007, at 12:57, Manos Batsis wrote:
>> Quoting Robin Berjon <robin@j...>:
>>> It seems to be begging for E4X, which is IMHO a lot
>>> clearer than the above.
>>
>> As said in my original email (sent only to Nathan by accident),
>> interoperability is, again, the problem :-/
>
> I know, and sorry for being too cursory to be clear. My point was more  
> about how if you want to produce XML, why not use... XML! E4X requires  
> the browser to be updated, which means it'll be a while before it's  
> widely useable, but there are other options that are also more readable  
> than method calls nested twelve times. For instance the various  
> Javascript templating libraries could come in quite useful there I'd say.
>

I find simply concatenating strings (var x=[]; x.push("..."); x.join("");)
to be the easiest and fastest (in terms of processing and writing). Either
stick it in innerHTML (definitely fastest) or create a DOM Document and
grab what you need with XPath.

best,
-Rob



-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

• References:
  • better (?) than DOM
    • From: "Nathan Young -X \(natyoung - Artizen at Cisco\)" <natyoung@c...>
  • RE: better (?) than DOM
    • From: "Nathan Young -X \(natyoung - Artizen at Cisco\)" <natyoung@c...>
  • Re: better (?) than DOM
    • From: Robin Berjon <robin@j...>
  • Re: better (?) than DOM
    • From: Manos Batsis <manos_lists@g...>
  • Re: better (?) than DOM
    • From: Robin Berjon <robin@j...>