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

RE: DOM Bindings repository. feedback needed!

From: Watson, Christopher <CWatson@lightspan.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 11:47:19 -0800
Message-ID: <92976FF84DEAD41191930002A52CF7A247B396@exchange.lightspan.com>
To: "'www-dom@w3.org'" <www-dom@w3.org>
Yes, a DOM Bindings Repository is indeed what the community is looking for,
Philippe. I do not, however, agree that publicly reviewed bindings for which
a listing is posted on the W3C site will garner an implicit endorsement.
Endorsements come with inclusion in the spec. Not so for disclaimed
listings. Please seriously consider solution #3.

<smirk>These comments have absolutely nothing to do with the fact that I'm
probably just a few days away from making what would be a formal DOM Binding
Submission for Lingo.</smirk>

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Christopher Watson
Sr. Software Engineer
Lightspan, Inc.
http://www.lightspan.com/
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-


		-----Original Message-----
		From:	Philippe Le Hegaret [mailto:plh@w3.org]
		Sent:	Monday, March 26, 2001 8:53 AM
		To:	WWW DOM
		Subject:	DOM Bindings repository. feedback needed!


		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. 


		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.)

		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.

		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.

		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
		  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?

		Any ideas or comments?

		Philipe
Received on Thursday, 29 March 2001 14:48:08 GMT

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