- From: Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 14:56:16 -0500 (EST)
- To: Daniel.Glazman@der.edf.fr
- CC: www-dom@w3.org, www-style@w3.org, xsl-list@mulberrytech.com
Daniel Glazman wrote: > > > May I point out that, as a matter of fact, the DOM is already defined in > > XML? As described in the Production Notes [1], the spec (HTML), the IDL > > definition, the Java and ECMAScript bindings are generated from a single > > XML source document. > > Yes, and this is an excellent starting point. But things stop on the > textual description. Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. We generate the actual IDL [1] and Java [2] files as well as the textual description (in HTML). We only have a textual description of the ECMAScript binding because the language doesn't have any such thing as an interface we could use. [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/WD-DOM-Level-2-19990923/idl.zip [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/WD-DOM-Level-2-19990923/java-binding.zip > We would like to see a XSLT solution for each binding. You mean an XSLT file that generates the IDL > > For historical reasons, this is not achieved with XSL, but I would > > expect this to be possible. The DOM WG has actually discussed several > > times the idea of switching to XSLT, the only reason we haven't done so > > is a lack of resources. A lot of time has been spent on developing the > > tools we currently use and, while admittedly it would be very neat to > > do, we just can't afford doing so. > > Arnaud, who's that "we" ? IMHO the cost of such an extension is worth > doing it, if compared to the possible benefits. The DOM Working Group. > > Arnaud Le Hors - IBM Cupertino, XML Technology Group > > BTW, how are things going ?-) Correctly installed ? Fine, thank you. :-) -- Arnaud Le Hors - IBM Cupertino, XML Technology Group
Received on Monday, 22 November 1999 14:05:52 UTC