- From: Mark Harwood <MHarwood@softwright.co.uk>
- Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 06:58:31 -0400 (EDT)
- To: "'www-dom@w3.org'" <www-dom@w3.org>
I was a little concerned about the models presented to the programmer in the proposed DOM. I sympathise with the need to provide an OO model with inheritance and a flattened model. I am not sure however that the separation between the two models is clean as it could be. For example, the OO developer using the "element" interface does not have access to a method to "getAttributes". For that, they are expected to use the "non-OO" base interface "Node". I thought Node was supposed to be the interface for non-OO developers. OO developers who are exposed to this interface are faced with all manner of non-OO dilemmas - e.g. "this method only applies if the node is representing _this_ type of object." I don't beleive the developer who choses the OO model shoud have to come into contact with a "dirty" interface like this. When I was first getting up to speed with XML using the Microsoft Java parsers they used a flattened model too and a colleague and I were both set back by trying to invoke methods which were not applicable in certain circumstances. I am sure this experience will be repeated by other developers the world over if this approach is adopted. Mark Harwood Technical Architect SSA Softwright Ltd Langley Business Centre Station Rd Langley, Berks SL3 8YT Tel 01753 811833 Fax 01753 811834 Email mharwood@softwright.co.uk
Received on Friday, 25 September 1998 11:08:38 UTC