W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-dom@w3.org > July to September 2000

Re: C and other non "standard" DOM language bindings

From: <keshlam@us.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 12:33:16 -0400
To: "Michael Champion" <mike.champion@softwareag-usa.com>
cc: www-dom@w3.org, michael.goulish@softwareag-usa.com, eric.bratton@softwareag-usa.com
Message-ID: <85256946.005AE8E5.00@D51MTA03.pok.ibm.com>
Good question. I'd like to see a good answer, but this may be nontrivial...


>I don't think this has happened ... has it?

My perception is that it hasn't... and that we may have missed our best
window.

The ad-hoc bindings may disagree on some fairly basic things. Memory
management, mapping of DOMString to a concrete type, how exceptions are
handled in languages which don't have native support, how objects are
handled in non-OO languages... all of these have multiple reasonable
solutions, each with their own advantages and disadvantages.

>"first mover" situtation where the first to publish sets the de-facto
standard?

I believe C++ has several published bindings with no agreement on what the
standard is... and without a shared interface layer to ease
interoperability. A layer of implementation-independent bindings _would_ be
a good thing,if it can be done; the problem is convincing folks to adopt it
given the behavioral variations noted above.

>are there any published DOM COM bindings other than Microsoft's

I believe someone was working on COM bindings for Xerces. I don't know
their status.

______________________________________
Joe Kesselman  / IBM Research
Received on Friday, 25 August 2000 12:35:52 GMT

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