- From: Mike Champion <mcc@arbortext.com>
- Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 18:02:37 -0400
- To: Claude Zervas <czervas@Adobe.COM>, www-dom@w3.org
At 02:38 PM 8/14/98 -0700, Claude Zervas wrote: > >>Suggestions for which "features" of the DOM Core you consider "baggage" >>would also be very welcome; they won't get removed from the overall spec, >>but we may well define conforming "packages" of functionality, e.g., a >>"server DOM", an "editor DOM", an "iterator package", etc. > >This would be fine as long as the "xxx DOM" package can selectively >deprecate or at least not implement certain core DOM features such >as Node.previous/nextSibling, etc. that hinder the use of that package >and still be "conforming". That's the idea, anyway; we would define a set of "packages" that can be implemented individually on top of a very minimal "server" or "simplified" core. This will make interoperability more of a challenge, but if we define the packages to meet the needs of coherent subsets of our users, it should be manageable.
Received on Friday, 14 August 1998 18:03:59 UTC