Re: domxml "nightmare" and suggestion
| From: | Ken Egervari | Date: | Sun, 14 Apr 2002 00:57:23 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: domxml "nightmare" and suggestion | ||
| References: | 1 | Groups: | php.dev |
| Request: | Send a blank email to php-dev+get-82772@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
I would like to do this if I have the time. As mentioned, i'm working on a
project that needs the latest version of PHP. If I could participate in
this to make it happen much sooner, I'd be happy to.
----- Original Message -----
From: <derick@php.net>
To: "medvitz" <medvitz@medvitz.net>
Cc: <php-dev@lists.php.net>
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,
> > 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
> Compability. The last thing we're waiting for is yet another extension
> with another API.
>
> Derick
>
> >
> > Medvitz
> >
> > Lukas Schroeder wrote:
> >
> > > 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 it promises a DOM-API, which it does not provide very
> > >> consitently and a lot of functionality is still missing.
> > >>
> > >> With all this points, i'd like to start a discussion about starting
from
> > >> scratch with the DOM-API in PHP. Maybe creating a new extension to
avoid
> > >> problems with all the people using domxml already (and therefore not
> > >> relying on keeping the old API).
> > >>
> > >> Ideas, thoughts, etc?
> > >
> > > i'd rather see an effort of finally getting domxml itself into a
mature
> > > state. it's about time, imho.
> > > regarding the api, it's not that people could/should have relied upon
a
> > > stable domxml api. it's _still_ experimental and marked as such. i'm
> > > running a patched[1] version of domxml for quite some time for
> > > development to get the functionality i need(ed), too.
> > >
> > > let's whip this beast into shape.
> > >
> > >
> > > [1] for patches see http://www.azzit.de/patches/php4/
> > >
> > >
> > > regards,
> > > -lukas
> >
> >
> > --
> > PHP Development Mailing List <http://www.php.net/>
> > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
> >
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Did I help you? Consider a gift:
> http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/registry/SLCB276UZU8B
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> PHP: Scripting the Web - derick@php.net
> All your branches are belong to me!
> SRM: Script Running Machine - www.vl-srm.net
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> --
> PHP Development Mailing List <http://www.php.net/>
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>