- From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 10:51:35 -0600
- To: public-webcgm-wg@w3.org
Per yesterday's telecon, final text to be sent. Any further comments? -Lofton. --- 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 entirety 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. We also considered 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. With regards to the Event APIs. Again, we defined our interface by borrowing heavily from DOM Events. The entire DOM 2 or 3 Event specification are simply too much for the WebCGM use cases. As you will notice from reading the WebCGMEvent interface, we do have a very small subset in mind. Therefore, for these two sets of APIs... we are looking for feedback such as: wrong parameter/return types; flaws in the wording with respect to a particular node type; critical omissions; wording that you believe is unclear to a script writer, etc... Summary. Several preliminary implementations validate that these interfaces are functional. We hope the Web API group can help us identify defects or mistakes we could have missed. ---
Received on Friday, 16 June 2006 16:51:51 UTC