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

Re: DOM Bindings repository. feedback needed!

From: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 15:29:58 -0500
Message-ID: <3AC0F846.5552D4B9@w3.org>
To: "Fred L. Drake, Jr." <fdrake@acm.org>
Cc: WWW DOM <www-dom@w3.org>
"Fred L. Drake, Jr." wrote:
> 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?

Regarding the Python DOM Bindings discussion, Uche Ogbuji included your email
address in the offline thread. Regarding the DOM Bindings repository, it would
be a public repository, with public-only comments. Hum, rereading the proposal,
this is not obvious. I need to clarify that.

>  > 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.

On one hand, I would say yes. It would also resolve the case of the numbers
that are possible to be included in the DOM spec. with separate documents,
there is no more limits. On the other hand, having separated documents increase
... the numbers of documents. Our communication team wasn't pleased at all of
the split of DOM Level 2. It will increase the number of documents in /TR a
lot. So, for the moment, the only reason why we didn't do that is a practical
An other possibility would be to remove the bindings from the specs and put
them somewhere else (let's say /DOM). They will be no longer normative in that
case and I don't think that we want that.

> [...]
>  > 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?

"public review" is that it will give a chance to people to reject the proposed
bindings. If someone sends an other (incompatible) version for the Python DOM
bindings, I won't a good reason to not list them in the DOM page.

> [...]

Received on Tuesday, 27 March 2001 15:29:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 20 October 2015 10:46:08 UTC