W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-dom@w3.org > October to December 1999

Re: DOM L2 comments, various

From: Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 04 Oct 1999 18:51:20 +0200
Message-ID: <37F8DB08.5DD126D6@w3.org>
To: www-dom@w3.org
"Stephen R. Savitzky" wrote:
> 
> interfaces, as Java does.  In a compiled language which does not support
> interfaces, for example C++, printOutElementsWithNS will fail to compile, or
> may compile against header files but fail to link against the DOM
> implementation actually in use.

Obviously. But what can we do about this?

> My solution is to use node types and exception codes less than zero; this is
> a direction in which the DOM is unlikely to go, and it seems better to
> reserve negative codes for implemention-specific uses than to completely
> prevent extensions.  The only possible effect of the latter would be to
> force those of us who find the present specification too limited to
> abandon the DOM altogether.

Given that node types and exception codes are defined in IDL as unsigned
short, you can be sure we'll never use any negative value. What you do
with what's outside the spec is completely up to you. I don't see the
need for the spec to state that.
-- 
Arnaud
Received on Monday, 4 October 1999 12:51:25 GMT

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