[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Elliotte Rusty Harold [mailto:elharo@metalab.unc.edu] wrote:
> Now that you mention it, I have seen that. I had filed it away
> at the back of my brain as "horrid, ugly, non-standard extensions
> to JavaScript and DOM" and promptly forgotten it once I finished
> working at the company that was using it. My one experience with
> this was that it massively confused the developers there, and
> led them to create truly awful XML systems that just weren't
> working. (In fact, that's what they brought me in to fix.) Maybe
> there's a good way to use this, but I've yet to see it, and I
> really don't like APIs that mislead developers. The right way
> should be obvious. The wrong way should be difficult to impossible.
In my experience, it's these non-standard extensions that have made the
DOM somewhat understandable and usable to the majority of Microsoft
developers. For example, if you're on an element node and access the
text property, it returns the child text node, imagine that!
...
> I don't really expect the .Net community to pay much attention to
> XOM. It's a Java API, after all. As you note, I certainly haven't
> paid much attention to .Net in the other direction. :-)
I think the .NET community has paid a lot of attention to the Java
folks. Isn't it obvious? ;-) The .NET framework has the most innovative
XML stack that I've seen to date (and I do try to keep up on the Java
side as well). It's a mistake to not learn - and improve upon - what
they've done.
--
Aaron Skonnard <http://skonnard.com>, DevelopMentor <http://develop.com>
Essential XML Quick Reference available online in PDF format...
<http://develop.com/books>
Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most times he will
pick himself up and carry on. - Winston Churchill
|
