About interfaces

Hi,

The object model itself seems to be right. This until we play with it with
real stuff and discover missing spots. But it seems a" priori" right.

However something strange in the specs.

a) There is mapping to EcmaScript which is a standard not owned by anybody.
So far so good.
b) There is mapping to OMG IDL which is also a standard not owned by
anybody. So far so good.
c) There is mapping to Java which is owned by Sun. Hoops proprietary stuff
here !!!
d) There is no mapping to DCOM IDL which is not owned by Microsoft but in
practice yes. However, there is vendors external to microsoft providing DCOM
on  platforms other than Windows. About 40% to half the browser market is
Microsoft Explorer (simple market fact). Question: Why there is no DCOM IDL
mapping in the appendices?

If there is a Java mapping, then, why there is no DCOM mapping? Am I missing
something here? Is W3 starting to be a bit far of developers realities? What
do you do with the +- 3 millions developers using DCOM based technologies?
Do an organism like W3 not supposed to be on top of market battles? Is it
because Microsoft representative slept on the switch by not providing a DCOM
IDL? If yes, please, forward that mail to all parties involved in DCOM
development like SA software, Compaq (Digital), Bristol, WinMain, HP, Linux
teams  all these parties busy implementing DCOM on other platforms.

Am I missing something here? What's wrong with you guys? I expected to see
in appendices:
a) EcmaScript mapping
b) java mapping
c) OMG IDL mapping
d) DCOM mapping

This kind of document would have, at least the merit of being neutral and
not biased toward the Sun, AOL keirustu.

Received on Monday, 30 November 1998 07:51:45 UTC