xml-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Scott Boag/CAM/Lotus" <Scott_B...@lotus.com>
Subject Re: parser-next-gen goals, plan, and requirements
Date Wed, 12 Jul 2000 19:31:24 GMT

> OK ... It is true that some of use want JDOM, but I would propose to try
> to built a new tree structure.

This is the problem.  Having a bunch of different tree structions is a
problem for interoperability.

I disagree with you.  A read-only DOM subset could easily work on small
devices.  If you want, I can work up the interfaces for this (a strict
subset of the DOM interfaces).  I've been beating up on the DOM WG to work
on this.  I think it's better to work on the DOM, than start creating new
APIs.  The DOM is about interoperability and pluggability.

-scott




                                                                                         
                         
                    Octav Chipara                                                        
                         
                    <ochipara@cse        To:     general@xml.apache.org               
                            
                    .unl.edu>            cc:     (bcc: Scott Boag/CAM/Lotus)          
                            
                                         Subject:     Re: parser-next-gen goals, plan, and
requirements            
                    07/12/2000                                                           
                         
                    12:41 PM                                                             
                         
                    Please                                                               
                         
                    respond to                                                           
                         
                    general                                                              
                         
                                                                                         
                         
                                                                                         
                         





HI!

> on 7/11/00 3:53 PM, Arnaud Le Hors at lehors@us.ibm.com wrote:
>
> > I actually simply don't understand the requirement about JDOM. DOM is
an
> > API, we need to provide classes that implement the API. This is true
for
> > JDOM. It's not an API. It's a set of classes that include a builder
that
> > works on SAX. So as long as we support SAX, which definitely is a
> > requirement, we're all set on that front. Let's leave the debate of
> > whether JDOM is a good thing or not outside of this project.
>
> I Disagree. JDOM is an important up and coming API that already has
> established a large and rapidly growing groundswell of support and in the
> developer community.
>
> You personally don't have to do the work to provide JDOM support -- as
long
> as the core architecture is pluggable and modular, then you can work on
DOM
> and Brett and co can work on JDOM and everybody wins.
>
> Wouldn't this be sign of a development community getting along. :)
>
> .duncan
>

OK ... It is true that some of use want JDOM, but I would propose to try
to built a new tree structure. IMHO, neither JDOM nor DOM would are the
best possible solutions. I would like something that would have small
footprint and that would be easily mapped on structures that could be
defined in some programming language!

What do you think?

Octav



---------------------------------------------------------------------
In case of troubles, e-mail:     webmaster@xml.apache.org
To unsubscribe, e-mail:          general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org






Mime
View raw message