Re: C implementation of DOM

[Daniel Veillard <veillard redhat com>]

On Mon, Apr 01, 2002 at 01:00:50PM +0100, Bill Haneman wrote:
> Well, we believe the lack of a (standard) C binding for DOM to be a 
> significant issue... not so much for gnopernicus as for accessibility
> of web content.

  That's pure FUD, stop this !
  If you want a single implementation, yes it doesn't exist, in the world
of W3C specs there is NO reference implementation. If Java has a reference
DOM implementation, that's an error from the Java world, W3C is clearly hostile
to anybody who would claim to have a reference implementation of one of their
specifications.
  There is DOM C implementations.

> > the details of which I'm ignorant of, but Daniel will know - Daniel ?
> 
> There were gnome-ish DOM projects, gdom and gdom2, but we were
> discouraged from introducing any dependency on them into ATK, and 
> at any rate they don't seem to have ABI/API backing outside of GNOME.

   If you don't want to use gdome2 for whatever reason, it is
*YOUR* choice. It exists, it's fast, it is conformant and it is based on
the existing GNOME XML and HTML support.

  It was not made part of the GNOME2 platform because at the time 
*NOBODY* asked saying this would be required for some DOM support
and hence I considered preferable to keep gdome2 outside the track and
constraints of the GNOME2 release.

Daniel

-- 
Daniel Veillard      | Red Hat Network https://rhn.redhat.com/
veillard redhat com  | libxml GNOME XML XSLT toolkit  http://xmlsoft.org/
http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/