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

Re: planned Level 3 modules

From: Ray D. Whitmer <rayw@imall.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 14:22:50 -0700 (MST)
To: David Brownell <david-b@pacbell.net>
cc: brad@yahoo-inc.com, ldwood@attglobal.net, www-dom@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.05.9912091414070.4883-100000@sol.imall.com>
On Thu, 9 Dec 1999, David Brownell wrote:

>Brad Clawsie wrote:
>> 
>> > Now that the DOM Level 2 is nearing a stage where all that remains to be
>> > done is to make sure it can be implemented :-),
>> 
>> hopefully after yesterday's announcement that sun is withdrawing java
>> from the ECMA standardization process (a process they initiated),
>> people will choose another language for reference implementations.
>
>I don't think those of us with L2 in Java will be inclined to stop.

I think we all reconsider our options from time to time, and this will
be seen as a negative, but until something else emerges that solves
the implementor's requirements as well as Java did, it is hard to make 
a case for switching right away.

>And in any case the L2 spec needs to be implementable in both Java
>and JavaScript, since those are the standardized bindings.
>
>Question:  how is an implementor going to know their implementation
>is correct, and conforms to the specification?

There are no compliance tests.  The spec is the sole source of info
to determine whether the implementation is compliant or not.  Tests
would be desirable IMO, but are always incomplete, and would have to 
defer to the spec for additional cases, which can never be entirely
covered.

I think that part of this exercize is to find places where the spec
is not clear enough for a developer to know whether the spec is being
followed or not.

Ray Whitmer
ray@imall.com
Received on Thursday, 9 December 1999 16:40:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 22 June 2012 06:13:47 GMT