Hello Sterling, Monday, January 12, 2004, 10:54:36 PM, you wrote:
>> Hello Sterling, >> >> Monday, January 12, 2004, 10:33:08 PM, you wrote: >> >> >> > In theory, I like the idea of a unified set of XML helper extensions, >> >> > but DOM's so big and ugly that I don't know if it plays well with >> >> > others in the sandbox. >> >> >> >> We are not consistent! Not in any way. DOM uses studlyCaps and SimpleXML >> >> uses underscores for its method names. Speaking of consistency we should >> >> probably discuss whether we want to change all methods of SimpleXML to >> >> studlyCaps (we cannot hcnage the DOM method names). Until RC1 i guess we >> >> can do such changes if we all agree and see it to be important. >> >> >> >> > Haven't you been reading the thread - there are no more methods! :) >> >> Ignorance is bliss. >> >> It makes no sense to drop all methods. IMO that'd be absolute nonsense. >> > Why? Every one of these methods can be done with simple xpath queries: > hasChildren() > getChildren() > == > /child::node() > attributes() > == > /attribute::* > count() > == > count(//self::node()) > This is why xpath was invented, and why its there in the first place. That was neither my point nor that of the mentioned two methods. The point is to enable interaction with SPL like other functions allow interaction with DOM and hence XSLT. For some things i tried it was great to not being forced to explain a colleague of mine the XPath standard. It is about easy use - just like the initial idea i had of simplexml. marcus -- Best regards, Marcus mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
