Re: [xml-dev] DOM's javascript roots (was Re: [xml-dev] Have JDOM / XOM / etc. failed?)

• To: XML Developers List <xml-dev@...>
• Subject: Re: [xml-dev] DOM's javascript roots (was Re: [xml-dev] Have JDOM / XOM / etc. failed?)
• From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@...>
• Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 16:11:07 -0400
• In-reply-to: <442D94E5.1040702@...>
• References: <20060331181515.52963.qmail@...> <26B5424A-181E-4A13-B9DB-4E63AD738AB0@...> <442D7D27.8090204@...> <39BC73F5-3EFF-4C4D-81E8-8EEE5344AF25@...> <442D94E5.1040702@...>

On Mar 31, 2006, at 3:45 PM, Elliotte Harold wrote:

> Of course. No method overloading. Think createElement,  
> createElementNS, etc. Java and C++ wouldn;t desing an API like that.

FWIW. This is as much an issue of supporting namespaces as anything  
else... they're a wart that shouldn't have made it too.

That said, there were a lot of tradeoffs made, but again, it was a  
case of good enough is good enough for the most part.

• 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: [xml-dev] DOM's javascript roots (was Re: [xml-dev] Have JDOM / XOM / etc. failed?)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread