Re: Proposal for java-language-binding: use of collections framework

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