[XML-SIG] Ugh! Why are DOM access methods spelled with a leading
Tue, 27 Jun 2000 10:10:41 -0400
"Fred L. Drake, Jr." wrote:
> Paul Prescod writes:
> > more important than CORBA compliance. I think that the same goes for
> > Python. That's why I use and advocate attribute syntax.
> From the IDL errors pointed out earlier and these comments, I'd have
> to conclude that the IDL definition should be removed from the
> recommendation (not present in the next rev., or whatever), and we
> should put together our own Python mapping that completely ignores all
> the naming conventions of the IDL and Java mappings and does the
> Python thing.
I suspect that there is agreement on this.
> The big issue there is the legacy code.
Is there much?
> So, are people using the _get_/_set_ methods or the attribute names?
> Why are these questions being brought back up so late in the game,
Is it late in the game? From the evidence on the XML-SIG
pages and the discussion here, it appears to me that there
is not a defined Python DOM mapping. Some people think that
it provides direct attribute, others seem to thing it provides
access based on both.
I started this because I'm working on a DOM implementation for the
next generation of StructuredText and I couldn't tell what the
heck I was supposed to implement.
Jim Fulton mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org Python Powered!
Technical Director (888) 344-4332 http://www.python.org
Digital Creations http://www.digicool.com http://www.zope.org
Under US Code Title 47, Sec.227(b)(1)(C), Sec.227(a)(2)(B) This email
address may not be added to any commercial mail list with out my
permission. Violation of my privacy with advertising or SPAM will
result in a suit for a MINIMUM of $500 damages/incident, $1500 for