W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > January 2006

Re: SVGT 1.2: uDOM vs DOM

From: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@expway.fr>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 16:45:58 +0100
Message-Id: <BCC6E75D-72FE-4D38-B9D3-DA440C1AFB5A@expway.fr>
Cc: www-svg@w3c.org
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>

Hi Maciej,

On Dec 27, 2005, at 06:21, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> What is the correct behavior for implementations that have a full  
> DOM? I can imagine the following possibilities:
> 3) They must provide the union of DOM and uDOM interfaces.
> Option 3 has issues as well. Some methods and attributes are  
> specified in uDOM in a way that conclicts with the DOM spec itself,  
> that makes this option currently infeasible (separate messages  
> coming on the specific ones I find). Second, this effectively adds  
> a  bunch of ad-hoc extensions to the DOM which in some cases  
> overlap with defined core DOM functionality. It seems unfortunate  
> to weigh down full DOM implementations with such redundant material.

It seems clear that the only sane option is this one, the other two  
effectively validating a split between mobile and full  
implementations that would be neither viable nor desirable.

There are two parts at the core of the issue. One is the conflicts  
between the uDOM and the DOM. In all cases these are being resolved,  
probably (though this hasn't been fully decided yet) by using  
references to DOM 3 Core rather than copy it. We will address your  
individual messages separately.

The second part concerns the added functionality. It does not seem  
unusual to us that a language would add some DOM extensions specific  
to its needs, as HTML and previous versions of SVG have done. We will  
however review everything that has been added (in the light of your  
other messages on this topic) and will either remove everything which  
we deem unnecessary or pass the ball on to another WG apt at making  
such addition in such a manner that they would apply to all XML  
vocabularies (the Web API WG would be a natural venue for this).  
Again, we will address your individual messages separately.

Thank you dearly for the excellency of your review, please tell us  
shortly if you disagree with this answer.

Robin Berjon
    Senior Research Scientist
    Expway, http://expway.com/
Received on Tuesday, 10 January 2006 15:46:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 March 2017 09:47:06 UTC