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

Re: SVGT 1.2: uDOM vs DOM

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 10:43:31 -0800
Message-Id: <4C9D3439-A59E-4B1A-B68F-4B61518C1173@apple.com>
Cc: www-svg@w3c.org
To: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@expway.fr>

On Jan 10, 2006, at 7:45 AM, Robin Berjon wrote:

> 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.

Assuming the resolutions to the two issues above are satisfactory, I  
agree with this answer.

Received on Tuesday, 10 January 2006 18:45:00 UTC

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