W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-dom@w3.org > January to March 2001

Re: DOM Bindings repository. feedback needed!

From: Fred L. Drake, Jr. <fdrake@acm.org>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 12:33:52 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <15039.32128.897446.690919@localhost.localdomain>
To: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
Cc: WWW DOM <www-dom@w3.org>

Philippe Le Hegaret writes:
 > I would like to get some feedbacks from this list on having
 > a DOM Bindings repository on the W3C site. The documents followed
 > an offline discussion with some of the members of the Python
 > community. 

  Interesting... I seem to be the editor of the Python DOM bindings;
should I be involved in this, or would such a restriction be limited
to W3C members?

 > http://www.w3.org/2001/01/DOMBindings
 > (and http://www.w3.org/2001/01/DOMBindingsSubmission).
 > 
 > The problem:
 > - The DOM specifications are only including OMGIDL/ECMAScript/Java
 >   bindings.
 >  (the main reasons are of course needs and interests.)

  Actually, would it make sense to break out the Java and ECMAScript
bindings into separate documents?  These are of no interest to large
portions of the DOM-using development communities.

 > The proposed solutions:
 > 
 > 1- Put a page on the W3C page with links to the bindings (note: "bindings"
 >   not "implementations"). No review or endorsement from the W3C. I'm not
 >   fond of this idea since I don't think it will improve a lot the current
 >   situation.

  This would be acceptable.

 > 2- Include them in the DOM specifications. That's no easy since it required
 >   reviews and work from the DOM WG but that's still a possiblity. This kind
 >   of approach will be under the official W3C Process.

  This would be problematic, as many of the players in the Python/XML
community are not members of the W3C and will not be able to join just
to work with the DOM bindings effort.

 > 3- something between 1 and 2: the DOM Bindings repository. No endorsement
 >   from the W3C but a public review of the bindings. There is no internal

  What is a "public review" in this context?  Does it simply mean that
it would be easier to find information on bindings for languages not
directly handled by the W3C?

 >   consensus that this is a good idea and this is why I'm looking for
 >   comments. One of the major comment was that it will be hosted by the W3C
 >   and will gain an implicit endorsement from the W3C (which you can't have
 >   without the approval of the W3C members). Someone already proposed to host
 >   the repository outside the W3C site but is it really what the community is
 >   looking for?

  The Python community already has a working group for XML topics, and
there hasn't been any discussion there about requesting endorsement
from the W3C -- the Python community generally ahbors adding process
to what is essentially a technical issue.
  On the other hand, I'm not at all opposed to a repository of
bindings documents, regardless of it's endorsement status with the
W3C.


  -Fred

-- 
Fred L. Drake, Jr.  <fdrake at acm.org>
PythonLabs at Digital Creations
Received on Monday, 26 March 2001 12:35:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 22 June 2012 06:13:48 GMT