- From: stephane boyera <boyera@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:46:58 +0200
- To: public-dcci-editors@w3.org
After agreement from Maciej Stachowiak, i'm forwarding this message containing a comment on the DCI spec that has been handled by the UWA WG in the July 4 version of the specification (http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-DPF-20070704/ ) Stephane On Oct 25, 2006, at 5:44 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: >On Oct 25, 2006, at 1:05 AM, Max Froumentin wrote: > >> >> Hi w3c-dom-ig, >> >> The Device Independence WG would be grateful if the IG could >> take a look at its latest published specification: >> >> "Delivery Context: Interfaces (DCI) Accessing Static and Dynamic >> Properties" >> http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/CR-DPF-20061019/ >> >> This is not a formal request, since the document is in CR, but given >> that it is about an API derived from the DOM, and that it defines new >> DOM node types in the IDL, we would be really grateful if we heard >> this group's opinion and advice. >Without even reading the rest of the spec, I think deriving custom >interfaces directly from Node is an extremely bad idea. The DOM is >meant to map to an XML infoset, and I do not see how this is possible >with the current design which has nodes that cannot correspond to >anything in an XML document. >I think the spec is fatally flawed as-is, and should either be >rewritten to be just a direct API that doesn't pretend to be a DOM, >or changed so that property nodes are Elements, because then the >property tree would be a well-formed DOM. >Given this major problem, I am not sure if closer review is >appropriate yet. >Regards, >Maciej -- Stephane Boyera stephane@w3.org W3C +33 (0) 4 92 38 78 34 BP 93 fax: +33 (0) 4 92 38 78 22 F-06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France
Received on Wednesday, 27 June 2007 12:47:15 UTC