Re: [unrev-II] Seeking definition for "DOM"

From: Eric Armstrong (
Date: Tue Jan 16 2001 - 17:36:10 PST

  • Next message: John J. Deneen: "[unrev-II] Silicon Valley Advanced Wireless Testbed (30 Mbps) for Software-definable Radios,Time-sharing RF Spectrum, and Peer-to-Peer Computing"

    N. C a r r o l l wrote:

    > ...Why didn't they just call it "DM", one wonders.
    An intelligent question.

    I guess the answer is that the objects in a DOM really are objects,
    in that they have behaviors and methods. It's just that they are
    so low-level -- intuitively, they're at the wrong level of

    To be fair, the model's weaknesses probably suffers from the
    inclusion of things like "processing instructions". For example,
    multiple processing instructions can occur under an element.

    Also (I never tire of pointing this out) the fact that text can
    occur virtually anywhere in a mixec-content element means that
    there is no "text" property, as one would intuitively expect
    for an "object" anchored at a given point in the hierarchy.

    The free intermixing of processing instructions, text, elements,
    and other low-level objects made true "object-ness" hard to
    capture. So the model is a tree of very low-level objects.

    Basically, I think the inelegance of the result should have been
    a clue that the design needed to be improved -- but the politics
    of social compromise probably made it more important to get
    something that could be used out the door.

    Community email addresses:
      Post message:
      List owner:

    Shortcut URL to this page:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 16 2001 - 18:03:34 PST