- From: David Brownell <david-b@pacbell.net>
- Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 14:48:04 -0800
- To: Joseph Kesselman <keshlam@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: www-dom@w3.org
> 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
Received on Monday, 25 February 2002 17:50:05 UTC