- From: Daniel Veillard <daniel@veillard.com>
- Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 16:19:36 +0200
- To: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>
- Cc: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@expway.fr>, www-dom@w3.org, XMLP Dist App <xml-dist-app@w3.org>, xmlp-comments@w3.org
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/ |
Received on Thursday, 6 May 2004 10:20:16 UTC