Message-ID: <D181361D7C86D011925700805FFE898E01F38711@spybem01.nap.spyglass.com> From: "Adams, Glenn" <email@example.com> To: "'Philipp Hoschka'" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "Adams, Glenn" <email@example.com> Cc: firstname.lastname@example.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:email@example.com] Sent: Monday, February 22, 1999 12:47 PM To: Adams, Glenn Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: DOM (was: Re: ATVEF uri) On 22/02/1999, "Adams, Glenn" <email@example.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 ?