Re: what kind of feedback from Web API?

Here is a first take on the matter. Feel free to comment and suggest
changes:

--
  Here is an attempt to clarify our request. WebCGM 2.0 has (more or
  less) two sets of APIs: one that resembles a subset of DOM 2 Core;
  the other that resembles a subset of DOM 2 Event.

  Why not use DOM 2 Core or DOM 3 Core? The main reason is that we
  thought an XML DOM API would create a lot of confusion to CGM
  (binary format) users. Also note that DOM 3 Core in its entirely is
  not needed by CGM users. That being said; because of the wide use of
  DOM Core; we tried to define a similar set of interfaces in an
  attempt to ease script writers, the burden of learning something
  completely different; not to undermine the fact that DOM Core has
  proven to be a reliable set of APIs and thus, seemed like a good
  basis for WebCGM 2.0.

  Therefore, with regards to the DOM Core like APIs... we are looking
  for feedback such as: wrong parameter/return types; flaws in the
  wording with respect to a particular node type; wording that you
  believe is unclear to a script writer, etc... Additionally, your
  experience can help us identify areas where our interfaces could be
  improved for usability.

  With regards to the Event APIs. We have ourselves, been wondering
  what would be the best course of action: defining our own interface
  or using DOM Events. We don't however, want to reference the entire
  DOM 2 or 3 Event specification; that is simply too much for the
  WebCGM use cases. We could use advice on how best to reference a
  subset DOM Events. As you will notice from reading the WebCGMEvent
  interface, you do have a very small subset in mind.

  We do understand that some of the comments could suggest
  substantial changes to the specification.
  
-- 
Regards,
 Benoit   mailto:benoit@itedo.com

 
Monday, June 12, 2006, 4:14:31 PM, Lofton Henderson wrote:

> WebCGM WG,

> [1]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-webapi/2006Jun/0014.html 
> (member-only)

> We should have a discussion about what kind of feedback we expect and/or
> would like from Web API WG, who is listed in our Charter [2] as one of the
> groups with whom we will coordinate.

> Note that this coordination item was added to our Charter during AC Review
> phase, in reaction to a comment about the draft Charter received during AC
> Review.

> Because of anticipated travel of a few WG members starting next week, we
> must take care of it this week.

> CAVEAT (and mini-lesson) about confidentiality!  You will note that Web API
> is not a public group, whereas WebCGM is a public group.  Therefore, we
> must all be careful that we do NOT copy or forward email messages that have
> been sent to member lists but public lists.  Thus I have pointed to the
> email message [1], which is in a member-only archive, rather than 
> forwarding it (which would put it in our public archive).  This might seem
> a little odd at first, but it just takes a little forethought (as I found
> out in the public QAWG -- learned the hard way by violating it a few times!)

> Regards,
> -Lofton.

> [2] http://www.w3.org/2006/03/webcgm-charter.html

Received on Monday, 12 June 2006 21:55:03 UTC