Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: "Don Park" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: "Peter Murray-Rust" <email@example.com>, <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Sat, 13 Dec 1997 16:38:51 -0800
>I think it's clear that we are not going to see just one API. Your
>suggestion, the grove plan, Xapi-J are all viable ways forward. The point
>is that Tim, DavidM, Norbert and I have all - independently - come up with
>fairly simple models for APIs which have a large degree of communality.
>They have the merit of being fairly simple for newcomers. None are required
>to be tree-structured.
First, I do not see the need for simple API. Having a simple API now will
definitely help control propliferation of proprietary XML parser API but, in
the long run, it will restrict application programmers to the set of
functionalities supported by the simple API.
Second, the cat is already out of the bag. For example, MSXML is already in
IE 4.0 and it is being used by JScript and Java applet programmers.
>I have looked at TreeModel in Swing and even implemented a simple JUMBO
>display on it. I have to confess that, being a Dumb Browser Hacker, I found
>it quite tough going. If the only interfaces to XML parsers are based on
>this level of abstraction a lot of people will find them hard.
My proposal was mainly for the parser writers and not the application
writers. Application writers will not be using XmlTreeModel but DOM
objects. My point was that interfaces like XmlTreeModel should be used to
write DOM framework so that the framework can support all existing and
future XML parsers.
>WE have been part way down this road before - look through XML-DEV
>discussions 6+ months ago. I think it's essential we home in on a
>moderately simple parser NOW - we know what we need to do - we simply need
>to agree on the precise components and the terminology.
I was not here 6+ months ago and I do not believe that just because there
has been previous discussions makes my proposal any less worthy. Frankly, I
am disappointed by the fact that there was no immediate understanding of the
advantages my proposal offers. It is partly my fault since I am pretty bad
at explaining things. However, I am disturbed that, while there is a wealth
of SGML and XML knowledge present in this mailing list, there seem to be a
lack of object-oriented design knowledge. I do not say this insultingly but
with concern. I appologize if anyone took my opinion negatively.
>All I want is to get the DOCTYPE stuff from the file. AElfred now provides
>exactly what I want - we just need to agree it.
All one wants is not necessarily what everyone wants and will want. Design
of a standard API should be approached more carefully and with future in
I am sorry if my comments upset you in anyway. It was not my intention.
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:email@example.com
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org the following message;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:email@example.com the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org)