W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-dom@w3.org > October to December 1998

Re: About interfaces

From: Jonathan Robie <jonathan@texcel.no>
Date: Wed, 02 Dec 1998 09:52:31 -0500
Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19981202095231.00a896d0@pop.mindspring.com>
To: "didier ph martin" <martind@netfolder.com>
Cc: <www-dom@w3.org>
At 01:04 PM 11/27/98 -0500, didier ph martin wrote:
 
>However something strange in the specs.
>
>a) There is mapping to EcmaScript which is a standard not owned by anybody.
>So far so good.
>b) There is mapping to OMG IDL which is also a standard not owned by
>anybody. So far so good.
>c) There is mapping to Java which is owned by Sun. Hoops proprietary stuff
>here !!!
>d) There is no mapping to DCOM IDL which is not owned by Microsoft but in
>practice yes. However, there is vendors external to microsoft providing DCOM
>on  platforms other than Windows. About 40% to half the browser market is
>Microsoft Explorer (simple market fact). Question: Why there is no DCOM IDL
>mapping in the appendices?
>
>If there is a Java mapping, then, why there is no DCOM mapping?

I think the simple answer is that nobody has done it yet, though the idea
has been discussed. The folks on these working groups are very busy, and
it's been a lot of work getting out what has been done so far.

Incidentally, the "mapping to OMG IDL" is actually the specification from
which other bindings are mapped, not a mapping. Java and EcmaScript are
both language bindings.

Jonathan
 
jonathan@texcel.no
Texcel Research
http://www.texcel.no
Received on Wednesday, 2 December 1998 10:05:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 22 June 2012 06:13:46 GMT