W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-er@w3.org > February 2012

Re: Intent of ER-XML

From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 15:33:36 +0100
Cc: public-xml-er@w3.org
Message-Id: <5712C0B3-8705-404B-92BA-19F98423FDCF@berjon.com>
To: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
On Feb 26, 2012, at 22:16 , David Carlisle wrote:
> I'd say any kind of abstract tree model. Current draft uses the terminology of the DOM which isn't my favourite tree model but if we think DOM based browsers are a likely user of this spec, then using the terminology of the DOM (but saying somewhere any tree model is OK) makes some kind of sense to me.

It's not just about browsers (though that certainly is an important aspect). The DOM has the advantage over something abstract like the Infoset that it's concrete and therefore directly testable. It's also widely supported (and itself tested). We all agree that it wouldn't win any beauty contests, but then it's web technology we're doing so we already knew that ;)

Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon

Coming up soon: I'm teaching a W3C online course on Mobile Web Apps
Received on Monday, 27 February 2012 14:34:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:47:26 UTC