[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
miles@milessabin.com (Miles Sabin) writes:
>I think we're back in floor-wax/dessert-topping territory. One of the
>early gripes with the DOM was browser/editor-specific functionality
>imposing significant performance overheads (in terms of the maintenance
>of book-keeping data) on server-side applications of the DOM. From my
>POV the result was much too browser/editor-centric.
Fair enough. Perhaps there's a case to be made that the real flaw lay
with people (including myself at one point) who expected the DOM to
provide the API for XML, rather than being one possibility of many.
I seem to remember there even being concerns that SAX was treading on
W3C and DOM territory, though I think Jon Bosak made it clear that it
wasn't a problem.
>I don't really remember much of these discussions revolving around the
>preservation or otherwise of lexical information,
I think the scylla/charybdis assumptions set in pretty early.
--
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com -- http://monasticxml.org
|
