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

Re: The DOM is not a model, it is a library!

From: David Brownell <david-b@pacbell.net>
Date: Thu, 07 Oct 1999 12:40:32 -0700
Message-ID: <37FCF730.2AC5D127@pacbell.net>
To: Michael Champion <michael_champion@ameritech.net>
Cc: DOM Mailing List <www-dom@w3.org>
Michael Champion wrote:
> 
> From: David Brownell <david-b@pacbell.net>
>
> >	Best to have a truly minimal
> > core, which doesn't incur those costs.
> 
> I fully agree PERSONALLY ... but I don't think it's a practical approach at
> this point. 

I suspect you're right.  This then begs the question:  if people
don't think DOM can become a lightweight API, how then will such
APIs get created?  It doesn't need to be based on DOM, or done by
the DOM WG (or even W3C).


> [This has been a very educational experience for me -- it's a miracle that
> there's any standards at all, not a curse that the standards are less than
> elegant!]

I'm familiar with the process.  One thing I was getting at:  the
DOM WG may well have reached the limit of its capability to trim
down; it's clearly in the "fatten the spec up" mode.  And as you
implied, there may be too many vested interests now to thin down.

That being so, I'm more than comfortable saying that DOM should
recognize its limits (and strengths!) and let other groups define
truly light weight APIs, with no browser or legacy constraints.

The best way to cause such groups to form may be to say that W3C
will _not_ be trying that with DOM.  On the other hand, if W3C is
going to do that ... it should really do it.  Fence-sitting by W3C
doesn't do the developer community any good.

- Dave
Received on Thursday, 7 October 1999 15:41:05 GMT

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