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

Re: More L3 Core Comments

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>
Message-Id: <1062087609.23313.68.camel@jfouffa.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 GMT

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