- From: Jon Ferraiolo <jferraio@adobe.com>
- Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2001 11:04:07 -0700
- To: jst@netscape.com (Johnny Stenback)
- Cc: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>, www-svg@w3.org
- Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010810153905.00b7cd80@mailsj>
Adobe takes the SVG IDL and runs a flattening process to expand all base classes before sending it through the MS COM tools, such as midl. This is really a very simple process. If the W3C were to provide COM bindings for its various DOMs, this is the approach that would be used in the COM bindings. Note that W3C documented ECMAScript bindings in effect do the same sort of flattening because ECMAScript doesn't even support single inheritance. For example, here is an excerpt from the ECMAScript language binding for DOM level 2 core for the Element interface: Object Element Element has the all the properties and methods of the Node object as well as the properties and methods defined below. .... There is indeed a viable approach to implementing the SVG DOM in COM environments and at least one implementation has successfully implemented this approach. The flattening approach used to implement COM interfaces matches the approach used to implement ECMAScript interfaces. Jon Ferraiolo SVG 1.0 Editor jferraio@adobe.com At 03:23 PM 8/10/01 -0700, Johnny Stenback wrote: >Chris Lilley wrote: >> >>Johnny Stenback wrote: >> >>>Does silence mean that nobody cares if the SVG DOM interfaces are >>>un-implementable in COM like environments? >> >>No, it means that there was some discussion recently between Philippe, >>Jon and myself and that it turns out that Adobe has in fact implemented >>SVG DOM in a COM environment. I have asked them for some more details of > >>this. >Any resolution to this yet? I see the SVG spec moving forward, but I don't >see how that can happen w/o resolving this issue? > > >-- >jst
Received on Saturday, 11 August 2001 14:06:07 UTC