W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-dom@w3.org > April to June 2004

Re: Request for review: XOP

From: Mark Nottingham <mark.nottingham@bea.com>
Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 10:47:00 -0700
Message-Id: <6042A6BE-9F85-11D8-9AC2-000A95BD86C0@bea.com>
Cc: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>, xmlp-comments@w3.org, www-dom@w3.org, Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@expway.fr>, XMLP Dist App <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
To: daniel@veillard.com

 From my viewpoint (i.e., not representing the WG), the focus of the 
request wasn't to "push" a particular way to support this onto DOM; 
rather, to solicit feedback from DOM about how it would be best 
accommodated. Based on the discussion so far, subclassing seems to be a 
good approach, but it sounds likely that it would need to be done by a 
WG other than DOM.


On May 6, 2004, at 7:19 AM, Daniel Veillard wrote:

>
> On Sat, May 01, 2004 at 02:15:16PM -0400, Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:
>>
>> At 3:47 PM +0200 5/1/04, Robin Berjon wrote:
>>
>>> DOM Level 2 HTML also does not deal with XML. It's the DOM all the 
>>> same.
>>> SMIL and SVG DOMs have non-XML features, yet they integrate well,
>>> strongly, and usefully with the Core DOM. If that's pollution, it
>>> would seem we are much polluted already, and people are liking it.
>>
>> Those work by subclassing the existing DOM interfaces. I read this
>> proposal to be requesting modifications to the core of DOM, a very
>> different thing. If that's not the case, and they just want to
>> subclass, then why do they need support for the DOM Core group
>> instead of doing it themselves as the SVG and SMIL groups have done?
>>
>> However, SMIL and SVG are XML. XOP is not. I really question whether
>> trying to present XOP as XML is the right path, especially since they
>> seem to find it onerous to use the existing APIs for processing XML.
>>
>> HTML is not XML (though XHTML is) and this is partly responsible for
>> the mess that is DOM. And people do not like it. In fact, I would say
>> that web developers who have to deal with HTML DOMs are even less
>> fond of the DOM than XML developers are.
>
>   +1
>
>  I'm with Eliotte here. Either subclass or simply make a new API set,
> it doesn't have to be pushed to the DOM level. If you are not handling
> Markup based structures then use another API, maybe it already exists
> maybe not, but in the later case it's not a reason to push it in DOM
> which is already complex enough.
>
> Daniel
>
> -- 
> Daniel Veillard      | libxml Gnome XML XSLT toolkit  
> http://xmlsoft.org/
> daniel@veillard.com  | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/
> http://veillard.com/ |
>
>

--
Mark Nottingham   Principal Technologist
Office of the CTO   BEA Systems
Received on Thursday, 6 May 2004 14:03:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 22 June 2012 06:13:57 GMT