RE: DOM (was: Re: ATVEF uri)

From: Adams, Glenn (gadams@spyglass.com)
Date: Mon, Feb 22 1999


Message-ID: <D181361D7C86D011925700805FFE898E01F38711@spybem01.nap.spyglass.com>
From: "Adams, Glenn" <gadams@spyglass.com>
To: "'Philipp Hoschka'" <ph@w3.org>, "Adams, Glenn" <gadams@rafiki.spyglass.com>
Cc: www-tv@w3.org
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 12:11:08 -0600
Subject: RE: DOM (was: Re: ATVEF uri) 



I should more precisely say "too much different" than present "DOM0"
practice. Rather than explain, it's easier to show you, so I'm attaching a
document that I compiled last year that details the differences between
different browser's DOMs, DOM1, as well as ECMA-262 (ECMAScript) in terms of
their predefined object classes, methods, properties, events, etc. The
classes shown in italics with an asterisk denote DOM1 classes. The class
shown as Global is an anonymous, global class. I won't claim that this
document is either complete or fully accurate; however, it does give a good
sense of the problems (both with DOM1 and with specifying a "DOM0").

BTW, do you know of any widely deployed browser that supports DOM1 as
defined? Or of content developers using DOM1 yet in wide-scale deployment? I
don't.

 <<DOM Support.xls>> 
 

		-----Original Message-----
		From:	Philipp Hoschka [mailto:ph@w3.org]
		Sent:	Monday, February 22, 1999 12:47 PM
		To:	Adams, Glenn
		Cc:	www-tv@w3.org
		Subject:	DOM (was: Re: ATVEF uri) 


		On 22/02/1999, "Adams, Glenn" <gadams@spyglass.com>  wrote:

		>By referencing DOM0, you are referencing IE/Navigator
behavior that remains
		>unspecified.  I agree that DOM1 is too much 

		which parts are too much ?