- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 21:30:26 +0200
- To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Cc: www-svg@w3.org
On Monday, April 18, 2005, 12:59:21 AM, Bjoern wrote: BH> Dear Scalable Vector Graphics Working Group, BH> From http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-SVGMobile12-20050413/svgudomidl.html BH> [...] BH> The SVG UDOM IDL defines the model for the SVG UDOM. Note that the SVG BH> UDOM IDL is defined such that some interfaces have more than one base BH> class. The different standard language bindings for the SVG UDOM are BH> responsible for defining how to map all aspects of the SVG UDOM into BH> the given language, including how the language should implement BH> interfaces with more than one base class. BH> [...] BH> No such "standard language bindings" exist. Please change the draft such BH> that these "standard language bindings" are included. Perhaps two things are being mixed up here: a) required language bindings. SVGT 1.2 does not require a particular language binding to be supported. SVG 1.1 does (ECMAScript) b) standardised bindings. There might be multiple ways of expressing the abstract IDL interface in a given language binding. This specification defines a standard way to do that, for a couple of languages. Implementations that follow that binding for a given language are compliant for that language binding; implementations that make up their own way of mapping the given language to the IDL have used a non-standard binding. In that context, does the text you quoted make sense? There are no *required* language bindings, but a couple of *standard* ones are supplied for ECMAScript and Java. -- Chris Lilley mailto:chris@w3.org Chair, W3C SVG Working Group W3C Graphics Activity Lead Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG
Received on Wednesday, 19 October 2005 19:30:37 UTC