e many left.
Joseph
> -Original Message-
> From: Christian Stocker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2002 6:42 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [PHP-DEV] domxml "nightmare" and suggestion
>
>
> Hi
>
> In the last weeks, whenever i read
ot; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2002 8:11 PM
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] domxml "nightmare" and suggestion
> On Sat, 13 Apr 2002, medvitz wrote:
>
> > Actually, I'd rather see a w3c DOM compliant module than a makeshift
DOM
We would still have the 'dom_*()' namespace if someone wants
to do a clean implementation from scratch.
On Sun, Apr 14, 2002 at 02:11:49AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote :
> On Sat, 13 Apr 2002, medvitz wrote:
>
> > Actually, I'd rather see a w3c DOM compliant module than a makeshift DO
On Sat, 13 Apr 2002, medvitz wrote:
> Actually, I'd rather see a w3c DOM compliant module than a makeshift DOM,
> which is what DOMXML seems to be. This would make a lot of things a lot
> easier, not to mention standard
Then fix the DomXML extension we have now, but also think about Backward
Actually, I'd rather see a w3c DOM compliant module than a makeshift DOM,
which is what DOMXML seems to be. This would make a lot of things a lot
easier, not to mention standard
Medvitz
Lukas Schroeder wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 13, 2002 at 12:41:44PM +0200, Christian Stocker wrote:
>> top issues.
On Sat, Apr 13, 2002 at 12:41:44PM +0200, Christian Stocker wrote:
> top issues... Personally I don't have much problems with this extension,
> but missing docu and the API as a moving target, is something which
> worries a lot of people. But one of the weakest things about domxml is
> IMHO that i
Hi
In the last weeks, whenever i read some comments about php and what is bad
about it (besides all the good points :) ), domxml seems to be one of the
top issues... Personally I don't have much problems with this extension,
but missing docu and the API as a moving target, is something which
worr
