- From: Christian Roth <rothc@informatik.tu-muenchen.de>
- Date: Tue Oct 5 17:22:18 1999
- To: "DOM Mailing List" <www-dom@w3.org>
>Virtually all DOM implementors have >added extensions (and I respectfully disagree with Arnaud that this is >"useless"), although this obviously limits interoperability. I agree with everything you said except for the last portion, which have brought up others as well and I just don't get it: Why does adding proprietary extensions limit the DOM's interoperability? Because after an _extension_, the 'core' (not in the sense of the DOM specification core) is still there, and this part still works in accordance with the DOM API as set forth in the W3C documents. Nobody choosing a DOM implementation is forced to use its proprietary extensions: if you don't need it, don't use it! I'm sure that all who have voted for reserving value ranges (e.g. for NodeType) for "users" are aware of the fact that if they use them, they are bound to that specific implementation (as is with using every proprietary extension). But, leaving open e.g. a certain range of values for them will ensure that at no time, these proprietary values will collide with values defined in a later revision of the standard. This mechanism would ensure that their implementation will always conform to the standard and cannot be rendered non-conforming simply by the W3C suddenly specifying a different meaning for "their" value. Leaving this door explicitly open might help get implementors to adopt the DOM API as the basis of their implementation efforts. Closing it by reserving everything to W3C could (IMHO) lead to the contrary: "Why should I support the DOM API at all, if I have to find clumsy work-arounds to be conforming and reach my goals? Then, I can as well settle on a fully proprietary solution." And there goes _any_ interoperability... This is just my opinion, and as ever, I might be completely wrong here. Regards, Christian Roth
Received on Tuesday, 5 October 1999 17:22:18 UTC