cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mike Pogue <>
Subject Re: JDOM - moving to
Date Thu, 27 Apr 2000 23:54:57 GMT
If it doesn't do namespaces the way the XML spec says to do them, then
it's not really compliant with the XML spec either.

You can invent your own interpretation of namespaces, but then it's not really 
XML at all, it's something else!  :-)  

It will be interesting to see how the JDOM API evolves over time!


Arnaud Le Hors wrote:
> [Note: I don't intend to get this going any much longer!]
> Brett McLaughlin wrote:
> >
> >   I hope we can both agree to move this discussion to
> > from now on - I am sure lots of people are tired
> > of hearing us already ;-)
> Well, sorry, I disagree. I feel like I need to address the same people
> you decided to address in the first place.
> > I understand that DOM is, in a sense, your "baby,"
> Although I've been very much involved in its development, believe me, I
> really don't consider it as my baby. For what it's worth my actual baby
> looks way better than that! :-)
> This said, although the DOM is clearly not what I'd have done for
> myself, I claim that nobody could have done better with the same
> constraints.
> > Could it be possible that you are being a bit biased?
> I honestly don't think so. And, I actually believe there is room for
> other things than full XML compliant processors.
> > I suggest this because you seem to imply that
> > there is an either-or relationship between DOM and JDOM.
> Well, that's the way _you_ presented things. You came here to tell
> people how DOM and SAX are ridiculous and how JDOM would save them!
> > However, I want to be clear to you and others that we have not and do
> > not seek to conceal this; I was a bit put off by your implication that
> > we were being misleading
> Well, to avoid confusion in the future I advise you to make this clear
> in your Mission statement [1] then.
> Saying JDOM is "100% compliant with existing standards such as the
> Simple API for XML (SAX) and the Document Object Model (DOM)" is
> misleading, as people will surely think it is compliant with the DOM.
> This is contradictory to your previous statement:
> > JDOM is not intended to be a 100% accurate representation of XML.
> Again, if that's what you want to do, fine by me. But make it clear it
> is so.
> [1]
> --
> Arnaud  Le Hors - IBM Cupertino, XML Technology Group

View raw message