[jdom-interest] META: Children of a lesser spec
brett.mclaughlin at lutris.com
Sat Sep 16 13:19:22 PDT 2000
"Peter V. Gadjokov" wrote:
> > What? JDOM is an XML /model/ so how can we possibly ignore
> > what XML says
> > about that model? If what JDOM represents is data that is defined by
> > this specification, how can we possibly not use this specification to
> > model that data? Otherwise, we wouldn't use the term Processing
> > Instruction, or XML Declaration, or Doctype. I don't buy this.
> I think you may have misunderstood what I wrote. It's a model allright. And
> anything these specs say about the model is relevant. They also say an awful
> lot about syntax, which is not as relevant - unless it's very closely tied
> to the model and you can't hide it. Specs that are specifically and only
> about models should be allowed to override whatever syntax specs say about
> models. Good API design should be allowed to override whatever any spec says
> about model - that is, it should be allowed to represent a different model,
> as long as it makes for a better API and is deterministically, and
> bidirectionally mappable to the specified model. I didn't say ignore, I said
> 'not drive API design'. Whatever the API design it must be capable of,
> directly or otherwise, expressing the entirety of the core XML model,
> whatever spec it is defined in. The syntax stuff, though, should live in
> Builders and Outputers, as far as humanly possible. [*]
> > M in JDOM doesn't mean anything ;-)
> Waiddaminute, you just said it was a /model/ :) It does mean something, it
> must necessarily be a model that is equivalent to (or a mappable superset
> of) what the specs talk about AND something that makes sense in Java. For
> instance, the entire notion of 'Node' is pretty much a DOM thing - nothing
> in, say, the infoset talks about Nodes yet the infoset explicitly states
> that DOM is considered infoset compliant. No, I'm not saying lets add Nodes
> - but something like JDOM is necessarily a model, potentially a model that
> extends/transforms the less expressive models it covers - Java is a far more
> expressive model than anything in XML and I think we're in agreement that we
> should make use of that, even if we don't have consensus on _how_.
You missed the joke - JDOM used to be an acronym, where 'M' stood for
Model. JDOM is no longer an acronym, so the 'M' doesn't mean anything.
> > Even on these grounds, you will find
> > that XML Infoset clearly defines content, and children.
> It defines children and occasionally uses the term content, without
> specification. The term content comes from the XML spec (a mostly-syntax
> spec). Terms defined in other specs are cross-referenced from infoset to
> other specs, oddly enough, content is not. That may be intentional or a bug
> in the spec, I have no idea - fact is, content is not solidly defined
> terminology in Infoset world - the term 'children' is.
> > This simply could not be any clearer - getChild() and getChildren() are
> > absolutely wrong according to this. So again, we are back to either:
> > getElement()/getElements()
> > or
> > getChildElement()/getChildElements()
> Yes they are wrong, no argument. They are also better API names. So what's
> more important, exact compliance with the spec naming or intuitive element
> traversal method names? Perhaps that's the thing we disagree on - I don't
> see any of the answers as exceptionally obvious. But some seem more
> consistent than others to me.
Whoa - you built a straw man. There is a difference betwwn intuitive
element traversal method names, and intuitive element traversal method
names /that overlap names of other things/. We aren't talking about
being intuitive or not; if that was the only concern, I'd +1 getChild().
But we're talking about intuitive, at the cost of being incorrect with
the spec. In that case, I'm firmly -1.
> > And again, the second is much clearer, particularly when XPath comes
> > into play.
> Taking getChildElement/getChildElements and going with the infoset
> terminology means replacing getContent/addContent and co with
> getChildren/addChild. If child is to mean something other than element then
> by your own argument (which I agree with) it should mean what it means in
> the spec. And nothing is more explicit about what 'child' means than the
> infoset. [**]
> > It is good to define what specs we should look at. It's also worth
> > noting that even if we disagree on the XML and Namespace spec as
> > being key, the Infoset spec alone has plenty to say on our names.
> It certainly does. I may have made a mistake in using the word 'children' in
> the subject - I really meant to start a meta-discussion about what specs
> should drive core API design. I still stand by:
> Java/OO API considerations/JDOM >= Infoset >= Syntax specs
> But I don't mean to imply that '>=' means 'can ignore'. Every time >= is
> not actually an =, it must be done with complete certainty that the
> extension is beneficial and allows for a deterministic, clear bidirectional
> mapping between he concepts of the superset to those of the subset.
> [*] This was the gist of my namespace-prefix rant - I thought (and still
> think) namespace prefixen can be made a lot less prominent (as they should
> be, since they are very much a syntactic feature) in the core API without
> compromising the ability to control and use them. The current implementation
> is wrong by omission - it does not distinguish between namespace (or
> namespace name, in infoset terminology) and namespace declaration. I'll try
> to write it up briefly, with XML spec/Infoset terminology and in terms of an
> API, in the hopes that it will be more digestible than an 8-page
> single-paragraph text overview.
> [**] Incidentally, if we were to become Infoset hardasses, DocType is
> apparently a child of document, unlike the JDOM implementation.
> To control your jdom-interest membership:
Brett McLaughlin, Enhydra Strategist
Lutris Technologies, Inc.
1200 Pacific Avenue, Suite 300
Santa Cruz, CA 95060 USA
More information about the jdom-interest