W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-dom@w3.org > July to September 1998

Re: To wstring or not to wstring...

From: ANOQ of the Sun <anoq@vip.cybercity.dk>
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 1998 14:42:16 +0200
Message-ID: <35A217A8.284D5126@vip.cybercity.dk>
To: DOM List <www-dom@w3.org>
David Brownell wrote:
> 
> Or better yet, use the "wstring" type but stipulate that the characters
> encoded in it must just be regular UCS-4 characters, perhaps constrained
> by the XML or HTML specs as appropriate.

Then we still don't get that length field etc. I vote for 2 typedefs
domchar and domstring (perhaps other names but...)

> You'll note that a nonconventional mapping of IDL to Java is in use, and
> the same is true for IDL to JavaScript.

Arrrgh! Is this supposed to be a standard or just Yet Another
Non-Standard (tm)!? The advantage of defining APIs in IDL,
is that it it possible to grap any stub compiler for
generating an API in any programming language. Then you
just use CORBA to use, say a C++ implementation of DOM
from Smalltalk or whatever. I'm still waiting for an
IDL->SML97 mapping, so that I can use a C++ implementation
of DOM from SML97, but that's another story...

I think it is very unattractive to use a Java API which
"more or less" maps to the DOM IDL files.

Dot y'all agree with this?


Cheers
-- 
,
ANOQ of the Sun / Johnny Andersen

E-Mail:   anoq@vip.cybercity.dk or anoq@berlin-consortium.org
Homepage: http://users.cybercity.dk/~ccc25861/
Received on Tuesday, 7 July 1998 09:13:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 22 June 2012 06:13:45 GMT