RE: ISSUE-10: [API] Should we be using well known types from other domains, such as DOMString?

Hi.

These are the possible options:

 - Directly use the IDL string: this approach means that all the strings handled will be ISO 8859-1 encoded. This is not recommended if we want wide character support.
 - Use wide string (wstring) type: this means that wide characters are used but the exact encoding is chosen at runtime depending on negotiation (the OMG documents are not very clear on this subject).
 - Create a type in IDL that maps to UTF-16 encoding (like the DOMString type): This is the option chosen in previous W3C specs. This means that any language binding generated from the IDL will work with UTF-16 encoded strings. The DOMString is a sequence of unsigned short meant to hold UTF-16 encoded strings.

Regards,
Rodrigo.

-----Mensaje original-----
De: Rhys Lewis [mailto:rhys@volantis.com]
Enviado el: jue 14/06/2007 1:55
Para: Rodrigo Garcia Acevedo; Mobile Web Initiative Device Description Working Group WG
Asunto: RE: ISSUE-10: [API] Should we be using well known types from other domains, such as DOMString?
 
Hello everyone, 

Just wanted to add a comment to wonder whether DOM types are actually
appropriate for an interface that is clearly intended only to run
servers-side? 

We use DOM types in UWA for the DCCI interfaces to the delivery context,
but in that case the API is running client side, inside a browser.

Best wishes

Rhys

-----Original Message-----
From: member-ddwg-request@w3.org [mailto:member-ddwg-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Rodrigo Garcia Acevedo
Sent: 13 June 2007 14:50
To: Mobile Web Initiative Device Description Working Group WG
Subject: RE: ISSUE-10: [API] Should we be using well known types from
other domains, such as DOMString?


Hi.

The DOMString type used in other specs was created to represent UTF-16
strings because IDL strings are only ISO 8859-1. As there can be values
that need UTF encoding I think the DOMString type is needed and should be
reused.
Anyway, as I already stated previously [1] the mapping from IDL to other
languages has issues that have to be resolved.

Regards,
Rodrigo.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ddwg/2007Feb/0023.html

-----Mensaje original-----
De: member-ddwg-request@w3.org [mailto:member-ddwg-request@w3.org] En
nombre de Mobile Web Initiative Device Description Working Group Issue
Tracker Enviado el: martes, 12 de junio de 2007 10:58
Para: member-ddwg@w3.org
Asunto: ISSUE-10: [API] Should we be using well known types from other
domains, such as DOMString?



ISSUE-10: [API] Should we be using well known types from other domains,
such as DOMString?

http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/DDWG/Group/track/issues/10

Raised by: Jose Manuel Cantera Fonseca
On product: 

In other W3C IDL-based specs such as the DOM (see [1]) there are some
wll-known datatypes that are used. Should these already defined datatypes
and its corresponding bindings being reused by the DDR API? 

[1] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/DDWG/wiki/IdlAndW3c