Alternatives to the W3C (was Re: Alternatives to the W3C)

Len Bullard cbullard at
Tue Jan 25 00:37:54 GMT 2000

Tim Bray wrote:
> At 09:40 PM 1/23/00 -0600, Len Bullard wrote:
> >So is DOM really required for XML 1.0, or is that a political position
> >about implementations?
> There is no *point* to supporting XML in the browser if you don't
> support the DOM.  If all you want is to display nice-looking stuff
> to humans, HTML does an excellent job of that. -Tim

And as I point out, supports varies application language by application 
language.  As has been asked elsewhere, who would bother using 
the rawDOM since "it is an implementer's tool, not a content 
developer's tool".

Data structures: underneath the thin veneer, all apps have their 
own.  So, should we make resource intensive applications take 
the penalty of being in the same box as a text display engine?


xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at
Archived as: or CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
Unsubscribe by posting to majordom at the message
unsubscribe xml-dev  (or)
unsubscribe xml-dev your-subscribed-email at your-subscribed-address

Please note: New list subscriptions now closed in preparation for transfer to OASIS.

More information about the Xml-dev mailing list