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

draft proposed Web API reply

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 08:33:38 -0600
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20060614155804.039519e0@localhost>
To: public-webcgm-wg@w3.org

All,

Here, for discussion purposes today, is a slight rewording of Benoit's 
proposal, for a reply to Web APIs question [1].

It tries to capture that we're accommodating and receptive (indeed, we have 
already applied 25 changes to 2.0, most of them from W3C suggestions, and 
making some fairly significant steps towards better I18N alignment, CDF 
alignment, etc).  Still, it acknowledges that we are at Last Call, which 
should somewhat constrain the scope of changes that are appropriate.

This is only a proposal, and I'm sure its wording and content can be 
improved.  Please be ready to discuss.

-----
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. 
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. Again, we defined our interface by 
borrowing heavily from DOM Events.  We ourselves have wondered whether we 
could align better with DOM Events and leverage it more. 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.

Summary.  As noted in your message, Last Call is not the best time for 
major substantive (functional) changes.  Nevertheless, we hope that the 
experts of Web APIs can help us to improve the alignment of the WebCGM 2.0 
specification with Web API technologies and specifications, in ways such as 
mentioned above.
-----

-Lofton.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm-wg/2006Jun/0077.html
Received on Thursday, 15 June 2006 14:33:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:19:09 GMT