close but no cigar.

ecmascript for xml (e4x) breaks the syntax check of a common javascript programmer (if not the general language specification at all).

foo..bar is invalid code. period. foo.@bar is invalid code. period. foo.( x == "bar" ) is invalid and ugly code. period.

and so it goes on introducing double colons and re-defining curly braces to finally be able to produce perl-code like x.n1::["not-an-identifier"].@id.

as far as i can see it, there would have been no disadvantage to use the "normal" way of implementing methods instead of eagerly inventing a fancy new syntax.

looks like a programmer high on java played havoc with an innocent scripting language. (maybe brendan eich needs the right javascript book, too?)

anyway, my thumbs are pointing down.