Re: DOM (was: Re: ATVEF uri)

From: Philipp Hoschka (ph@w3.org)
Date: Tue, Feb 23 1999


Message-Id: <199902232009.VAA02066@www45.inria.fr>
To: www-tv@w3.org
cc: arnaud@w3.org
From: Philipp Hoschka <ph@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 21:09:09 +0100
Subject: Re: DOM (was: Re: ATVEF uri) 


On 22/02/1999, "Adams, Glenn" <gadams@spyglass.com>  wrote:
>I should more precisely say "too much different" than present "DOM0"
>practice. 

I talked to our DOM expert (Arnaud Le Hors, copied above), and
the situation is as follows: DOM level 1 deliberately tackles
part of the functionality provided by DOM0, to make the task
of coming to consensus on a W3C rec more manageable. The other
parts are expected to be addressed in DOM2 and DOM3.

For more info, see the public page

http://www.w3.org/DOM/

A first public working draft for DOM2 has been published:
http://www.w3.org/TR/WD-DOM-Level-2/

W3C members can also read the material and check the status
of the DOM WG at:
http://www.w3.org/DOM/Group/

>Or of content developers using DOM1 yet in wide-scale deployment? I
>don't.

Actually, we expect that many content developers will use DOM1
rather than DOM0 for new content, given that it is very costly
and difficult to develop content while taking into account
the differences in the DOM0 versions between different vendors.
Actually, the high cost of content development is recognized 
as a reason why "DHTML" hasn't been as big a success as people 
expected it to be.

Taking us back to the original question: which DOM to use
for TV receivers ? Given the difficulty of specifying DOM0,
it seems preferable to go for DOM1, and to track and influence
the ongoing W3C work for extending the DOM functionality