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: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 13:02:43 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <15042.10051.322397.676770@cj42289-a.reston1.va.home.com>
To: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
Cc: WWW DOM <www-dom@w3.org>

Philippe Le Hegaret writes:
 > Regarding the Python DOM Bindings discussion, Uche Ogbuji included
 > your email address in the offline thread. Regarding the DOM

  I've now dug back through my inbox and found those emails, and read
them.  Thanks for the pointer.

 > 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.

  I understood that the repository would be public; I still don't know
what the comments are -- comments *by* the public, or comments by the
W3C *to* the public?

[In response to my suggestion to move the bindings out of the DOM spec...]
 > 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,

  There are no limits either way, unless your bits are heavier than
mine.  ;-)

 > 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 reason.

  Ah... a classic document management problem.  I'll consider that a
W3C internal matter, and keep out of it.

 > 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.

  I have no reason to suggest that the status of the Java or
ECMAScript bindings be changed; I think careful standardization is a
good thing.

 > "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.

  This is a little odd.  If there is a reason for the public to reject
a particular binding, that implies that non-rejection is meaningful in
some sense.  If W3C endorsement is not meant by keeping the bindings
document in the repository, I'm not sure what is being rejected.  If
it's a matter of people saying they don't like a binding for whatever
reason, that's fine, but I'm not sure what is gained over having a
mailing list archive for that.  (Which is not to say there shouldn't
be a forum associated with the repository; it's just unclear what the
goal is.)


Fred L. Drake, Jr.  <fdrake at acm.org>
PythonLabs at Digital Creations
Received on Wednesday, 28 March 2001 13:04:05 UTC

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