- From: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
- Date: 28 Aug 2003 12:20:10 -0400
- To: Curt Arnold <carnold@houston.rr.com>
- Cc: WWW DOM <www-dom@w3.org>
On Thu, 2003-07-17 at 00:25, Curt Arnold wrote:
> Interface DOMImplementationSource:
>
> I dislike the form of this interface for a couple of reasons:
> it
> requires that each implementation source to parse the features list
> which could have been done once for all implementation sources
correct, but no having a single String would requires passing a more
complex structure between the DOMImplementationRegistry and the
DOMImplementationSource.
> and it
> enables the implementation source to return inconsistent first
> implementation sources.
We clarified the description of getDOMimplementation as follows:
[[
This method returns the first item of the list returned by
getDOMImplementationList.
]]
(note that getDOMimplementationList used to getDOMImplementations but
has been renamed)
> I'd suggest something like
>
> interface DOMImplementationSource {
> DOMImplementation getDOMImplementation(DOMStringList features,
> DOMStringList versions, unsigned int index);
> }
Except that the version numbers could be ignored in the current LC
proposal:
"XML 3.0 Traversal +Events 2.0"
Traversal does not have a version number associated with it. And the
proposal introduces the parsing of 2 strings instead of one ...
> I believe that eliminates any use of DOMImplementationList so that
> interface could be eliminated.
This seems orthogonal to your proposal. getDOMImplementationList returns
a list of DOM implementations.
Philippe
Received on Thursday, 28 August 2003 12:21:37 UTC