RE: [xml-dev] DOM's javascript roots (was Re: [xml-dev] Have JDOM / XOM

[Tatu Saloranta <cowtowncoder@yahoo.com>]

--- "Bullard, Claude L (Len)"
<len.bullard@intergraph.com> wrote:

> The antecedent gets lost.   Pardon if I'm picking 
> the wrong one.  XML doesn't start with HTML. 

No, I was not implying it did; I did say that DOM
started with HTML.

> I'd be surprised if for almost all of the things
> listed, 
> there aren't multiple parents and lineages.  For

Certainly, definitely. The examples weren't (meant to
be) exhaustive, but to give an idea why history
matters in understanding the current situation. It is
easier to accept flaws (at least by people with
pragmatic view of the world) knowing where things came
from, and with what baggage.
 
> A history sort is useful for assigning blame, but it
> won't 
> fix the problems or answer the question of why DOM
> is still 

I am not much into blaming. Living in a blame-based
(moving from a guilt-based one -- different flavours
of protestantic sub-cultures) society either makes you
adapt to it, or protest against it. I prefer the
latter group. But I do take some comfort in seeing how
and why choices/decisions were made or drifted to.

> thriving.  I suspect it is simply momentum
> overcoming any 
> other forces applied.   DOM alternatives don't do
> enough 
> to offset that momentum which includes the base of
> installed 
> code both in the machines and in the human brains.

I believe this is closest to consensus one can reach
into this particular thread. I don't think anyone
disagrees that this is a major factor. ;-)
("don't attribute to malign what can be explained by
laziness" [inertia / convenience / dont-care-fulness])

-+ Tatu +-


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com