- From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>
- Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2003 15:28:31 -0400
- To: Johnny Stenback <jst@w3c.jstenback.com>
- Cc: Joseph Kesselman <keshlam@us.ibm.com>, Francois Yergeau <FYergeau@alis.com>, "'www-dom@w3.org'" <www-dom@w3.org>, www-dom-request@w3.org
At 11:01 AM -0700 9/20/03, Johnny Stenback wrote: >Code bloat is not the only reason, the point is I don't want to >force implementors to write code they know they don't care about, >for whatever reason (code bloat, implementation time, QA resources, >you name it). That's a rather unusual position to take as part of API standard development. The benefit of the standard API is that users can count on it across implementations, but that only works if the standard is rich enough to cover many, perhaps most, uses. Throwing basic pieces away because some developers don't need it although many do need it will produce a standard that may be small and easy to implement but isn't very practical for real work. It's one thing to eliminate convenience features that can be duplicated in a few method calls. It's quite another to remove important functionality like being able to specify the encoding as UTF-8. If DOM's serious about being a generic XML API then it needs to provide this. Otherwise, we might as well just all use our own custom APIs like XOM, JDOM, or MSXML. We're going to have to use custom DOMs anyway because DOM isn't guaranteeing us enough power to get the job done. :-( -- Elliotte Rusty Harold elharo@metalab.unc.edu Processing XML with Java (Addison-Wesley, 2002) http://www.cafeconleche.org/books/xmljava http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D0201771861/cafeaulaitA
Received on Saturday, 20 September 2003 17:10:38 UTC