- From: <keshlam@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 17:19:31 -0500
- To: lauren@sqwest.bc.ca
- cc: John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>, www-dom@w3.org
> However, modified versions of the DOM bindings may be created > provided that: > > the W3C copyright notices are not removed; > > a comment is added that the modified binding > does not conform to any W3C standard; > > in the case of the Java binding, the package names > are changed to be no longer in the org.w3c package. Interesting proposal. Note that the same result can usually be accomplished (in Java, at least) by declaring a new set of interfaces, in the new package, which inherit from and override/extend the standard DOM API. That avoids needing to copy/alter the existing W3C bindings, and makes the relationship between your subclass and the standard DOM explicit. This approach might not work in all languages. But it seems to offer a way out of the current collision while we wait for the lawyers to ponder the Meaning Of Open. ______________________________________ Joe Kesselman / IBM Research
Received on Tuesday, 9 November 1999 17:19:57 UTC