Re: Proposal for java-language-binding: use of collections framework

> There's a major difference between someone else proposing a specialized
> alternative to the DOM within a limited problem domain where
> interoperability isn't an issue, and the DOM itself deciding to give up on
> interoperability. If we do that -- modulo the places where we explicitly
> left things as optional -- it isn't a standardized API and we might as well
> can the whole effort.

Erm ... shouldn't that argument be getting applied to DOM's use
of its own nonstandard language mapping for OMG-IDL?


> Once you start talking about selectively implementing APIs and completely
> replacing them with others, you're talking about a custom API rather than
> being compliant with the DOM spec. 

DOM has already done that.  Its language mapping is nonstandard.

All those DOM-ish generic data structure efforts (DOM4J, JDOM,
and more) are doing is going a bit further along that path.  I don't
see why DOM itself shouldn't do that.

- Dave