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

Re: E4H and constructing DOMs

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 17:55:17 +0000 (UTC)
To: Brendan Eich <brendan@secure.meer.net>
cc: "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1303111752470.15713@ps20323.dreamhostps.com>
On Fri, 8 Mar 2013, Brendan Eich wrote:
> 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.

E4H is much simpler than E4X, actually:

   http://www.hixie.ch/specs/e4h/strawman

It's just a small syntax extension to JS. (It doesn't involve an HTML 
parser, in fact it doesn't involve any parser at all other than the JS 
parser, which is why it gives compile-time syntax checking.)

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Monday, 11 March 2013 17:55:44 UTC

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