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.


                    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
                    12:41 PM                                                             
                    respond to                                                           


> 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
> > API, we need to provide classes that implement the API. This is true
> > JDOM. It's not an API. It's a set of classes that include a builder
> > 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
> as the core architecture is pluggable and modular, then you can work on
> 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?


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

View raw message