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
abstraction.
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: unrev-II@onelist.com
Subscribe: unrev-II-subscribe@onelist.com
Unsubscribe: unrev-II-unsubscribe@onelist.com
List owner: unrev-II-owner@onelist.com
Shortcut URL to this page:
http://www.onelist.com/community/unrev-II
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 16 2001 - 18:03:34 PST