W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-script-coord@w3.org > January to March 2013

Re: E4H and constructing DOMs

From: Brendan Eich <brendan@secure.meer.net>
Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2013 18:05:48 -0800
Message-ID: <513A98FC.1050107@secure.meer.net>
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
CC: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>, Allen Wirfs-Brock <allen@wirfs-brock.com>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, Rick Waldron <waldron.rick@gmail.com>, Adam Klein <adamk@chromium.org>, Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, "rafaelw@chromium.org" <rafaelw@chromium.org>, Alex Russell <slightlyoff@chromium.org>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>, "Mark S. Miller" <erights@google.com>
Jonas Sicking wrote:
> I agree that AST solutions have advantages. But the cost of
> introducing them is really high and as far as I can tell there is no
> way to create a generic AST-based solution. I.e. if we wanted to do
> something SQL-like for querying databases we'd have to invent a whole
> new JS syntax for that too.

Right. In this sense E4X was on more solid ground, because XML's parsing 
was simpler and easier to integrate into JS's. E4H is much worse off.

/be
Received on Saturday, 9 March 2013 02:06:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 May 2013 19:30:09 UTC