- From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 11:26:02 -0600
- To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Cc: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@expway.fr>,public-webcgm-wg@w3.org
Hi Bjoern, The WebCGM WG discussed about what feedback would be most helpful to us. Included below, also, is a little more explanation and background about the content of Last Call WebCGM 2.0. --- 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. --- Thanks, we look forward to the benefit of your expert appraisal. Regards, -Lofton. [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-webapi/2006Jun/0014.html
Received on Thursday, 22 June 2006 17:25:54 UTC