>Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm >X-No-Archive: yes >list-help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >list-unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >list-post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Delivered-To: mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] >From: "Tom Palmer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: Request for Vote: Dom Package Change >Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 12:14:04 -0700 >MIME-Version: 1.0 >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >X-Priority: 3 >X-MSMail-Priority: Normal >X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 > >> Well if you want to be real generic refer to the interfaces in >org.w3c.dom. This >> way they don't have to even care about which parser is generating the DOM >tree. > >Still, what if someone wanted to use one organization's parser >and another's DOM implementation? These should be kept >independent if at all possible.
Well that is going to be tough to do without actually making changes to the parsers. The parsers generating the DOM tree has to have a mechanism by which you can set the implementation and then it will use that. Which I don't think is done with all parsers. The only truely generic way to do is to program to the dom interfaces and not to any implementation. - Rajiv > >- Tom > >
