W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-dom@w3.org > July to September 2003

Re: DOMWriter etc spec in DOM Level 3 LS ( June 19 2003 )

From: Ramesh Mandava <Ramesh.Mandava@Sun.COM>
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 15:28:37 -0700 (PDT)
To: Ramesh.Mandava@Sun.COM, plh@w3.org
Cc: www-dom@w3.org
Message-id: <0HHD00A2GAFRFZ@ha21sca-mail1.sfbay.sun.com>

Hi Philippe:

  Thank you very much for prompt response and resolution
  
  Regards
  -Ramesh
  
>Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 11:15:04 -0400
>From: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
>Subject: Re: DOMWriter etc spec in DOM Level 3 LS ( June 19 2003 ) 
specification???
>To: Ramesh Mandava <Ramesh.Mandava@Sun.COM>
>Cc: WWW DOM <www-dom@w3.org>
>MIME-version: 1.0
>Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
>Original-recipient: rfc822;Ramesh.Mandava@Sun.COM
>
>On Thu, 2003-06-26 at 14:25, Ramesh Mandava wrote:
>> Hi:
>>   As part of DOM Level 3 Load and Save specification ( June 19 2003 : 
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-DOM-Level-3-LS-20030619 ) java binding 
"DOMWriter" 
>> is moved to 
>>   
>>   "org.w3c.dom.DOMWriter" ( similarly DOMOutputStream ) . The idea may be to 
put 
>> this as part of "DOM Level 3 Core specification".
>>   
>>   But the latest available version of "DOM L3 Core spec [ June 9,2003 ]" ( 
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-DOM-Level-3-Core-20030609  ) doesn't specify 
this 
>> interface.
>>   
>>   Can't the different DOM L3 specs can be in sync?? Is somebody trying to 
>> resolve this issue??
>
>I published a corrected version of the DOM script generator [1], and
>uploaded a compiled version at:
>http://www.w3.org/2003/06/27-specgenerator.jar
>
>use it as follows:
>java -jar 27-specgenerator.jar \
>--map-type Java void void  --bindings \
>http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-DOM-Level-3-LS-20030619/xml-source.xml
>
>You'll need SAX and DOM bindings in your classpath as well.
>
>This will generate appropriate bindings, according to their definitions
>in the LS chapter. Apologies for the inconvenience.
>
>I also noted that the IDL in the LS specification contains errors (some
>parameter names conflict with their types). "context" is also used as a
>parameter name but is reserved by the OMG specification to be used as
>context objects for operations. So expect some parameter renaming in the
>next version of LS (not an issue for Java, but it is an issue for some
>bindings such as Python). This includes the methods parseWithContext,
>startElement, acceptNode, write, writeURI, writeToString, and saveXML.
>
>We tried to make sure that LS and Core are in sync (which is why you
>have the issue DOMSerializer-iucd-issue in the LS specification), so any
>inconsistency found between those specifications is an error and needs
>to be reported as such in this mailing list.
>
>Philippe
>
>[1] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/java/classes/org/w3c/tools/specgenerator/
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 1 July 2003 18:28:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 22 June 2012 06:13:57 GMT