- From: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@x-port.net>
- Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 12:44:40 -0000
- To: <public-webapi@w3.org>
Maciej, > I don't think anything in the spec requires having a UI. The > properties are about: > > 1) Providing a global scope for ES > 2) methods for some aspects of walking the tree of document > references in a CDR situation (somewhat incomplete w/o window.frames) > 3) timers > 4) finding out the current document's URI and navigating to new URIs > > They would all work fine in non-visual UAs. I understand, and my point was only about the name. We have a system that uses JavaScript. It can load a document via one set of interfaces, and then push that document to one or more renderers. I don't fancy calling the global context 'window', since it is a 'controller' that contains both the network interfaces and the renderers. But it would be good if it had as many of the same methods and interfaces as possible as other 'environments'. > I was referring mainly to other existing features that are > already widely implemented. So one answer is that my architecture falls outside of what you are trying to do. I obviously don't have a problem with that, insofar as you are undertaking a tidying up exercise of documenting what exists. But insofar as a 'standard' set of APIs is being defined for the future, I think it would be better if my kind of application could also fall within this. > We could put timers on a separate interface. But I don't > think anything in the proposed interface is onerous to > implement or requires having a UI. That's more the direction I was hoping for. It would be great if we could base the interfaces we need for things like timers, and so on, on some 'standard'. Regards, Mark Mark Birbeck CEO x-port.net Ltd. e: Mark.Birbeck@x-port.net t: +44 (0) 20 7689 9232 b: http://internet-apps.blogspot.com/ w: http://www.formsPlayer.com/ Download our XForms processor from http://www.formsPlayer.com/
Received on Tuesday, 14 February 2006 12:45:45 UTC