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

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

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

To: XML Developers List <xml-dev@lists.xml.org>
Subject: Re: [xml-dev] DOM's javascript roots (was Re: [xml-dev] Have JDOM / XOM / etc. failed?)
From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@rbii.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 16:23:53 -0400
In-reply-to: <BAY114-W7B4D1684C663C6F17E2A299CA0@phx.gbl>
References: <BAY114-W7B4D1684C663C6F17E2A299CA0@phx.gbl>


On Apr 4, 2006, at 4:15 PM, Michael Champion wrote:
>>> I'm not the OMG IDL specialist but could the overloading  >  
>>> issues come from there?
>
> I believe that was the strongest argument against method  
> overloading in the DOM.

Not from IDL specifically, but from the notion that not all languages  
supported overloading.

References:
- RE: Re: [xml-dev] DOM's javascript roots (was Re: [xml-dev] HaveJDOM / XOM / etc. failed?)
  - From: "Michael Champion" <michael.champion@hotmail.com>

Prev by Date: Re: [xml-dev] DOM's javascript roots (was Re: [xml-dev] Have JDOM / XOM / etc. failed?)
Next by Date: Re: [xml-dev] DOM's javascript roots (was Re: [xml-dev] Have JDOM / XOM / etc. failed?)
Previous by thread: Re: [xml-dev] DOM's javascript roots (was Re: [xml-dev] Have JDOM / XOM / etc. failed?)
Next by thread: RE: Re: [xml-dev] DOM's javascript roots (was Re: [xml-dev] HaveJDOM / XOM / etc. failed?)
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread