- From: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
- Date: 26 Feb 2002 04:10:51 -0500
- To: David Brownell <david-b@pacbell.net>
- Cc: WWW DOM <www-dom@w3.org>
On Mon, 2002-02-25 at 17:53, David Brownell wrote: > > 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? The nonstandard language mapping for OMG-IDL was done before having a standard one in the OMG. > > > 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. What about backward compatibility with DOM Level 1 and 2? If we're going to break the compatibility, I'd better wait for an XML 2.0 than doing it now. Philippe
Received on Tuesday, 26 February 2002 04:11:23 UTC