- From: David Brownell <david-b@pacbell.net>
- Date: Thu, 07 Oct 1999 12:40:32 -0700
- To: Michael Champion <michael_champion@ameritech.net>
- Cc: DOM Mailing List <www-dom@w3.org>
Michael Champion wrote: > > From: David Brownell <david-b@pacbell.net> > > > Best to have a truly minimal > > core, which doesn't incur those costs. > > I fully agree PERSONALLY ... but I don't think it's a practical approach at > this point. I suspect you're right. This then begs the question: if people don't think DOM can become a lightweight API, how then will such APIs get created? It doesn't need to be based on DOM, or done by the DOM WG (or even W3C). > [This has been a very educational experience for me -- it's a miracle that > there's any standards at all, not a curse that the standards are less than > elegant!] I'm familiar with the process. One thing I was getting at: the DOM WG may well have reached the limit of its capability to trim down; it's clearly in the "fatten the spec up" mode. And as you implied, there may be too many vested interests now to thin down. That being so, I'm more than comfortable saying that DOM should recognize its limits (and strengths!) and let other groups define truly light weight APIs, with no browser or legacy constraints. The best way to cause such groups to form may be to say that W3C will _not_ be trying that with DOM. On the other hand, if W3C is going to do that ... it should really do it. Fence-sitting by W3C doesn't do the developer community any good. - Dave
Received on Thursday, 7 October 1999 15:41:05 UTC