- From: Stephen McConnell <mcconnell@osm.net>
- Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 04:03:43 +0100
- To: "Jonathan Robie" <jonathan@texcel.no>, <Ming-Fang.Wang@alltel.com>
- Cc: <www-dom@w3.org>
It seems to me the there is already a C++ mapping for IDL. What appears to be problematic concerning the W3C usage of IDL is that supplementary language mappings are being defined. Aside from political wangling, there is one and only one valid technical reason for this that I am aware of, namely the requirement to be able to map exceptions from attributes - a feature not currently supported by IDL. As a result the DOM IDL spec carries a number of ambiguous exception declarations as comments in the IDL. The good news is that proposals currently under the OMG Component technology adoption process includes revisions to IDL to include exception declarations on attributes. Details of the Component proposal are available under ftp://ftp.omg.org/pub/docs/orbos/98-12-02.zip. With the inclusion of these changes to IDL we can envisage a complete alignment of the activities within OMG and W3C. Cheers, Steve. Stephen J. McConnell, OSM sarl Business Components for Electronic Commerce http://www.osm.net mailto:mcconnell@osm.net > -----Original Message----- > From: www-dom-request@w3.org [mailto:www-dom-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of > Jonathan Robie > Sent: Wednesday, 06 January, 1999 02:54 > To: Ming-Fang.Wang@alltel.com > Cc: www-dom@w3.org > Subject: Re: C++ DOM Binding > > > At 02:46 PM 12/30/98 -0600, Ming-Fang.Wang@alltel.com wrote: > > > Hi, I would like to know if there is a C++ DOM binding spec. > > No, there isn't. We often agree that this would be a good idea, but nobody > has volunteered the time to do this yet. > > Jonathan > > jonathan@texcel.no > Texcel Research > http://www.texcel.no > >
Received on Tuesday, 5 January 1999 22:04:23 UTC