W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-dom@w3.org > January to March 2002

Re: Could SVG 1.1 use DOM's XML representation for interfaces?

From: Dimitris Dimitriadis <dimitris@ontologicon.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 19:12:39 +0100
Cc: "Curt Arnold" <carnold@houston.rr.com>, www-svg@w3.org, www-dom@w3.org
To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Message-Id: <6FE66ED9-1CBF-11D6-8164-000393556882@ontologicon.com>
In addition, the W3C QA WG is looking into similar issues, ie. how to 
unify schemas used for writing specifications themselves. I'm one of the 
editors, and the document family is forthcoming (no idea when it will 
actually hit the public space).

/Dimitris

On Friday, February 1, 2002, at 07:35 , Chris Lilley wrote:

> On Friday, February 01, 2002, 4:43:28 PM, Curt wrote:
>
> CA> The interface definitions in the SVG 1.0 spec appear to be defined
> CA> using an IDL syntax in the prose of the document. It would be
> CA> helpful from both a DOM testing and code generation perspective
> CA> (as well as a documentation consistency with other DOM related
> CA> technologies), if the ultimate definitions for the SVG DOM in SVG
> CA> 1.1 were expressed and available in the XML representation used in
> CA> the DOM specs.
>
> Yes, we plan to do that, we are already moving the document to the
> specprod XML language used by DOM and other working groups.
>
> CA> The only thing that looks like it might be an issue is the use of
> CA> multiple inheritance in the interface definitions, it is possible
> CA> that the current DOM stylesheets might not support that, but it
> CA> should be relatively easy to change those to support a space
> CA> separated list of base interface names.
>
> Yes, it would seem so.
>
>
> --
>  Chris                            mailto:chris@w3.org
>
Received on Friday, 8 February 2002 13:12:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 22 June 2012 06:13:55 GMT