- From: Jonathan Robie <jonathan@texcel.no>
- Date: Wed, 02 Dec 1998 09:52:31 -0500
- To: "didier ph martin" <martind@netfolder.com>
- Cc: <www-dom@w3.org>
At 01:04 PM 11/27/98 -0500, didier ph martin wrote: >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? I think the simple answer is that nobody has done it yet, though the idea has been discussed. The folks on these working groups are very busy, and it's been a lot of work getting out what has been done so far. Incidentally, the "mapping to OMG IDL" is actually the specification from which other bindings are mapped, not a mapping. Java and EcmaScript are both language bindings. Jonathan jonathan@texcel.no Texcel Research http://www.texcel.no
Received on Wednesday, 2 December 1998 10:05:00 UTC