- From: Jonathan Robie <jonathan@texcel.no>
- Date: Tue, 03 Nov 1998 10:24:09 -0500
- To: John Cowan <cowan@locke.ccil.org>
- Cc: DOM List <www-dom@w3.org>
Stephen R. Savitzky wrote: > At this point I'm probably going to stop hoping that iterators get back into > the DOM at some point, and instead count on programmers to design > appropriate classes of their own that don't depend on whatever bizarre > single-application-specific behavior somebody decides to throw into the spec > because they think they know better than I do what my application wants to > do with a parse tree. I think it very likely that iterators will be in Level 2. We're working on it. I can't let the phrase "bizarre single-application-specific behavior somebody decides to throw into the spec" slip by, though. What "single application" are you talking about? Have you looked at the membership of the DOM WG? SoftQuad, ArborText, Texcel, INSO, Microsoft, Netscape, IBM, Sun, iMall, webMethods, Merryl Lynch... we do radically different things. When some browser vendor proposes something, I have to think about what that would mean for a repository implementation, the authoring vendors have to think what that means for an editor, iMall and webMethods have to think about using it in their applications... And "somebody decides to throw into the spec"? In fact, one of the criticisms people made was that we spent too much time agonizing over various design decisions, and Level 1 took a long time to come out. I think that's the cost of working to achieve consensus in a group that represents so many branches of the industry. And in the end, we found that we needed just a little more time to agonize over iterators. There have been many different drafts of iterator proposals. I'm pretty sure we'll reach consensus by Level 2. Jonathan jonathan@texcel.no Texcel Research http://www.texcel.no
Received on Tuesday, 3 November 1998 10:23:39 UTC