From: Adams, Glenn (
Date: Mon, Feb 22 1999

Message-ID: <>
From: "Adams, Glenn" <>
To: "'Michael A. Dolan'" <>, Rob Glidden <>, "Adams, Glenn" <>
Cc:, Ted Wugofski <>, Philipp Hoschka <>
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 11:11:26 -0600
Subject: RE: ATVEF uri 

		-----Original Message-----
		From:	Michael A. Dolan []
		Sent:	Monday, February 22, 1999 11:55 AM
		To:	Rob Glidden; Adams, Glenn
		Cc:; Ted Wugofski; Philipp Hoschka
		Subject:	Re: ATVEF uri 


		Noone in TV-land is trying to characterize IE and Netscape
behavior.  The
		issue is that DOM1 is too much, and there is a need for
something less.

By referencing DOM0, you are referencing IE/Navigator behavior that remains
unspecified.  I agree that DOM1 is too much (and, indeed, quite a new
direction than present IE4/Nav4 and following behavior, though IE4 has begun
to incorporate a small part of DOM1).

		We can call it DOM0v2, or DOM0.5, or DOM-TV-0

If ATVEF is to become a specification capable of being implemented and
tested by independent parties, it will be necessary to either define DOM0
more formally or to independently specify the specific DOM behavior required

		DOM-TV-0 may never be used on the Internet, but that doesn't
make it any
		less fruitful to pursue...


		At 08:39 AM 2/23/99 -0800, Rob Glidden wrote:
		>-----Original Message-----
		>From: Michael A. Dolan <>
		>To: Philipp Hoschka <>
		>Cc: <>; Ted Wugofski
		>Date: Sunday, February 21, 1999 3:07 PM
		>Subject: Re: ATVEF uri
		>>Excellent question.  I am pushing ATVEF that this be
addressed as part of
		>>an overall standardization effort of all the items in the
		>>Any help W3C would like to offer on this topic (pointer to
the old DOM0
		>>document that was previously there at W3C, or other legacy
DOM0 work) to
		>>help us define it would be greatly appreciated.
		>My interpretation of "DOM0" was that it was simply a
reference to the
		>"unspecified situation before DOM", much like "DHTML" was a
reference to an
		>unspecified collection of various features from various
		>So "DOM0, version 2" seems like an unfruitful pursuit.
		>> Mike
		>>At 06:22 PM 2/21/99 +0100, Philipp Hoschka wrote:
		>>>the new ATVEF 1.1 spec (dated 2 Feb) is at
		>>>one question: the ATVEF spec says:
		>>>Mandatory support is required for the following standard
		>>>- DOM 0
		>>>The W3C DOM rec states
		>>>"The term "DOM Level 0" refers to a mix (not formally
		>>>of HTML document functionalities offered by Netscape
		>>>Navigator version 3.0 and Microsoft Internet Explorer
version 3.0.
		>>>In some cases, attributes or methods have been
		>>>included for reasons of backward compatibility with "DOM
Level 0"."
		>>>Given that DOM level 0 is not formally specified, how can
		>>>test whether it is supported in ATVEF ?
		>>>On 15/02/1999, Ted Wugofski <>
		>>>>You might want to look at the latest ATVEF specification
(1.1), which
		>>>>provides a new and improved URI system.  Off the top of
my head, the URL
		>>>>Ted Wugofski         voice: +1 817 285 1853
		>>>>Gateway              fax:   +1 817 285 9567
		>>Michael A. Dolan, Representing DIRECTV,  (619)445-9070
		>>PO Box 1673 Alpine, CA 91903        FAX: (619)445-6122
		Michael A. Dolan, Representing DIRECTV,  (619)445-9070   
		PO Box 1673 Alpine, CA 91903        FAX: (619)445-6122