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

Re: Anybody for a server-DOM spec?

From: Mike Champion <mcc@arbortext.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 15:08:29 -0400
Message-Id: <>
To: Claude Zervas <czervas@Adobe.COM>, www-dom@w3.org
At 11:26 AM 8/14/98 -0700, Claude Zervas wrote:
>The current DOM spec is next to useless for server-side
>applications. It contains way too much baggage designed
>for client-side scripting that only benefits basically
>two or three big vendors. It has almost no support for
>editing (since there are no defined 'set' methods for
>most of the node tree mutation attributes).

The DOM WG will meet in about 10 days to map out plans for Level 2 and
beyond of the spec. There *has* been considerable demand for DOM
subset/superset/spinoff/whatever that would be more appropriate for
server-side processing.  XML Editing support is also a high priority for
several WG members who represent XML editor vendors. 

I personally think that such an unofficial interest group would be most
effective in generating clear REQUIREMENTS for Level 2 and aggressively
reviewing drafts as they come out to make sure they suit your needs.
Suggestions for which "features" of the DOM Core you consider "baggage"
would also be very welcome; they won't get removed from the overall spec,
but we may well define conforming "packages" of functionality, e.g., a
"server DOM", an "editor DOM", an "iterator package", etc.  that would
allow implementers and users more flexibility in which features they
support/pay, while still having a mechanism to guarantee interoperability.
The big vendors are far more likely to support APIs coming out of the W3C
than from an informal group (e.g., Microsoft does not support SAX, AFAIK),
so I think our collective energies would be most optimally used if you
folks prodded the W3C effort along rather than striking out on your own.  

My personal opinion is that the WG would benefit from frequent, detailed
interaction with the people who post on the www-dom list, and perhaps we
should figure out ways of working more productively with our "customers"
out there, i.e., you folks.  Yet as much as I emotionally sympathize with
the notion of producing "clean" APIs that are untainted by the constraints
of the big vendors' need to maintain compatibility with their current
products, I've come to realize that a "good enough" standard that meets a
wide spectrum of needs and *actually gets implemented* is the best we as an
industry can hope for. 

There's not that much traffic on www-dom that a new mailing list is
necessary, IMHO, and I'm quite sure that you'll get the attention of the WG
better if you conduct your advocacy campaign here.  So, I'd encourage you
all to post to this list detailed, frank proposals for what the DOM Level 2
should do and how to do it most effectively. I think that's the best way to
accomplish your goals, which are shared by many others.

Again, I'm not speaking for my employer, the WG, the W3C, or anyone but

Mike Champion
Received on Friday, 14 August 1998 15:13:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 20 October 2015 10:46:04 UTC