>  In practice JDOM code is *much* more 
>  > portable across parsers than DOM implementations are. I have yet to 
>  > be able to run a significant DOM program on two different DOM 
>  > implementations (in Java) without debugging and rewriting 
>  some code, 
>  > even in those parts that are allegedly standard.
>  
>  Was it due to differences in interpretation of the 
>  specifications, bugs in the implementations, or differences 
>  between your interpretation and the implementation 
>  interpretation? 

My experience of DOM is that there are lots of nasty subtle differences
between implementations, for example in the handling of namespaces, the
handling of entity references, and many other details. Usually when I go
and check the spec it doesn't tell me which behavior is right, at least
not without a week of study.

>  
>  > >- JDOM's architecture expolits the fact that there it 
>  doesn't have to 
>  > >worry about multiple implementations. 

Except that every version of JDOM has been incompatible with the one
that went before - something that is very much a characteristic of
software developed without the benefit of free-standing interface
specifications.

Michael Kay
Software AG
home: Michael.H.Kay@[...].com
work: Michael.Kay@[...].com 


-----------------------------------------------------------------
The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org> , an
initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org> 

The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/

To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>