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

final text

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 10:51:35 -0600
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20060616104637.02403390@localhost>
To: public-webcgm-wg@w3.org

Per yesterday's telecon, final text to be sent.  Any further comments?

-Lofton.

---

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 entirety 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.
We also considered 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.

With regards to the Event APIs. Again, we defined our interface by
borrowing heavily from DOM Events. The entire DOM 2 or 3 Event
specification are simply too much for the WebCGM use cases. As you
will notice from reading the WebCGMEvent interface, we do have a very
small subset in mind.

Therefore, for these two sets of APIs... we are looking for feedback
such as: wrong parameter/return types; flaws in the wording with
respect to a particular node type; critical omissions; wording that you
believe is unclear to a script writer, etc...

Summary. Several preliminary implementations validate that these
interfaces are functional. We hope the Web API group can help us
identify defects or mistakes we could have missed.

---
Received on Friday, 16 June 2006 16:51:51 GMT

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