W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webcgm-wg@w3.org > June 2006

Re: what kind of feedback from Web API?

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 17:06:50 -0600
Message-Id: <>
To: Benoit Bezaire <benoit@itedo.com>,public-webcgm-wg@w3.org

A specific question of clarification, only for my own understanding...

At 05:55 PM 6/12/2006 -0400, Benoit Bezaire wrote:

>Here is a first take on the matter. Feel free to comment and suggest
>   Here is an attempt to clarify our request. WebCGM 2.0 has (more or
>   less) two sets of APIs: one that resembles a subset of DOM 2 Core;
>   the other that resembles a subset of DOM 2 Event.
>   Why not use DOM 2 Core or DOM 3 Core? The main reason is that we
>   thought an XML DOM API would create a lot of confusion to CGM
>   (binary format) users.

Okay, what are some details behind that statement?  Here's what comes to 
mind for me:

-- binary format versus XML;
-- only grouping elements (APSs) are WDOM-visible, not the entire set of 
graphical elements;
-- WDOM is read-only;
-- WDOM only needs very small subset of DOM2C/DOM3C (below);

Any other reasons/details?


>Also note that DOM 3 Core in its entirely is
>   not needed by CGM users. That being said; because of the wide use of
>   DOM Core; we tried to define a similar set of interfaces in an
>   attempt to ease script writers, the burden of learning something
>   completely different; not to undermine the fact that DOM Core has
>   proven to be a reliable set of APIs and thus, seemed like a good
>   basis for WebCGM 2.0.
>   Therefore, with regards to the DOM Core like APIs... we are looking
>   for feedback such as: wrong parameter/return types; flaws in the
>   wording with respect to a particular node type; wording that you
>   believe is unclear to a script writer, etc... Additionally, your
>   experience can help us identify areas where our interfaces could be
>   improved for usability.
>   With regards to the Event APIs. We have ourselves, been wondering
>   what would be the best course of action: defining our own interface
>   or using DOM Events. We don't however, want to reference the entire
>   DOM 2 or 3 Event specification; that is simply too much for the
>   WebCGM use cases. We could use advice on how best to reference a
>   subset DOM Events. As you will notice from reading the WebCGMEvent
>   interface, you do have a very small subset in mind.
>   We do understand that some of the comments could suggest
>   substantial changes to the specification.
>  Benoit   mailto:benoit@itedo.com
>Monday, June 12, 2006, 4:14:31 PM, Lofton Henderson wrote:
> > WebCGM WG,
> > [1]
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-webapi/2006Jun/0014.html
> > (member-only)
> > We should have a discussion about what kind of feedback we expect and/or
> > would like from Web API WG, who is listed in our Charter [2] as one of the
> > groups with whom we will coordinate.
> > Note that this coordination item was added to our Charter during AC Review
> > phase, in reaction to a comment about the draft Charter received during AC
> > Review.
> > Because of anticipated travel of a few WG members starting next week, we
> > must take care of it this week.
> > CAVEAT (and mini-lesson) about confidentiality!  You will note that Web API
> > is not a public group, whereas WebCGM is a public group.  Therefore, we
> > must all be careful that we do NOT copy or forward email messages that have
> > been sent to member lists but public lists.  Thus I have pointed to the
> > email message [1], which is in a member-only archive, rather than
> > forwarding it (which would put it in our public archive).  This might seem
> > a little odd at first, but it just takes a little forethought (as I found
> > out in the public QAWG -- learned the hard way by violating it a few 
> times!)
> > Regards,
> > -Lofton.
> > [2] http://www.w3.org/2006/03/webcgm-charter.html
Received on Wednesday, 14 June 2006 23:06:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:23:38 UTC