--- Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@e...> wrote:

> On Apr 06, 2006, at 01:41, Michael Champion wrote:
> > > Any input from this gang of heretical
> DOM-haters?
> >
> > Take the poor ol' thing to the vet and put it out
> of its misery?
> 
> No effing way :) I love the stuff. And I'm pretty
> much most folks in  
> the WebAPI WG and our community would agree. Keep in
> mind that the  
> alternatives don't includes the likes of DOM Events,
> which is a  
> crucial piece of the architecture for us.
...
>    - simplifying things by moving the interfaces
> that aren't needed  
> in browsers into separate (optional) modules; and
>    - perhaps taking care of a few rough edges that
> experience shows  
> folks always get wrong.
> 
> > Seriously, DOM-the-standard's only reason to live
> these days is to  
> > make portable browser -- oops, sorry "Web 2.0" --

What might be necessary is really to divide the scope
in two somewhat disjoint pieces: case of having
general API/framework for manipulating XML within
browser platform; and the case of using DOM on other
platforms.

Since DOM came from the former, maybe it has more
relevance within that domain. For one browser platform
is more static in many ways, so long-living standard
API is more important (both since vendors have more
control over the platform than in stand-alone use
cases; and due to legacy deployments of clients).

So problems, concerns and challenges are quite
different between someone trying do Ajax client-side
xml processing, vs. someone doing server-side xml
message handling. As such, solutions are likely to be
different as well. I think most of most negative
comments are regarding using DOM outside of browsers.

-+ Tatu +-



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com