RE: ATVEF uri

		-----Original Message-----
		From:	Michael A. Dolan [mailto:miked@tbt.com]
		Sent:	Monday, February 22, 1999 11:55 AM
		To:	Rob Glidden; Adams, Glenn
		Cc:	www-tv@w3.org; Ted Wugofski; Philipp Hoschka
		Subject:	Re: ATVEF uri 

		Rob/Glenn-

		Noone in TV-land is trying to characterize IE and Netscape
behavior.  The
		issue is that DOM1 is too much, and there is a need for
something less.


By referencing DOM0, you are referencing IE/Navigator behavior that remains
unspecified.  I agree that DOM1 is too much (and, indeed, quite a new
direction than present IE4/Nav4 and following behavior, though IE4 has begun
to incorporate a small part of DOM1).

		We can call it DOM0v2, or DOM0.5, or DOM-TV-0

If ATVEF is to become a specification capable of being implemented and
tested by independent parties, it will be necessary to either define DOM0
more formally or to independently specify the specific DOM behavior required
by ATVEF.

		DOM-TV-0 may never be used on the Internet, but that doesn't
make it any
		less fruitful to pursue...

			Mike

		At 08:39 AM 2/23/99 -0800, Rob Glidden wrote:
		>
		>-----Original Message-----
		>From: Michael A. Dolan <miked@tbt.com>
		>To: Philipp Hoschka <ph@w3.org>
		>Cc: www-tv@w3.org <www-tv@w3.org>; Ted Wugofski
<Ted.Wugofski@OTMP.com>
		>Date: Sunday, February 21, 1999 3:07 PM
		>Subject: Re: ATVEF uri
		>
		>
		>>Philipp-
		>>
		>>Excellent question.  I am pushing ATVEF that this be
addressed as part of
		>>an overall standardization effort of all the items in the
spec.
		>>
		>>Any help W3C would like to offer on this topic (pointer to
the old DOM0
		>>document that was previously there at W3C, or other legacy
DOM0 work) to
		>>help us define it would be greatly appreciated.
		>
		>My interpretation of "DOM0" was that it was simply a
reference to the
		>"unspecified situation before DOM", much like "DHTML" was a
reference to an
		>unspecified collection of various features from various
vendors.
		>
		>So "DOM0, version 2" seems like an unfruitful pursuit.
		>
		>Rob
		>
		>>
		>>Thanks,
		>> Mike
		>>
		>>At 06:22 PM 2/21/99 +0100, Philipp Hoschka wrote:
		>>>
		>>>the new ATVEF 1.1 spec (dated 2 Feb) is at
		>>>
		>>>http://www.atvef.com/atvef_spec/TVE-public-1-1r26.htm
		>>>
		>>>one question: the ATVEF spec says:
		>>>
		>>>Mandatory support is required for the following standard
		>>>specifications:
		>>>
		>>>...
		>>>- DOM 0
		>>>...
		>>>
		>>>
		>>>The W3C DOM rec states
		>>>
		>>>"The term "DOM Level 0" refers to a mix (not formally
specified)
		>>>of HTML document functionalities offered by Netscape
		>>>Navigator version 3.0 and Microsoft Internet Explorer
version 3.0.
		>>>In some cases, attributes or methods have been
		>>>included for reasons of backward compatibility with "DOM
Level 0"."
		>>>
		>>>Given that DOM level 0 is not formally specified, how can
one
		>>>test whether it is supported in ATVEF ?
		>>>
		>>>On 15/02/1999, Ted Wugofski <Ted.Wugofski@OTMP.com>
wrote:
		>>>>You might want to look at the latest ATVEF specification
(1.1), which
		>>>>provides a new and improved URI system.  Off the top of
my head, the URL
		>>>>is http://www.atvef.com
		>>>>
		>>>>Ted
		>>>>
		>>>>-------------------------------------------
		>>>>Ted Wugofski         voice: +1 817 285 1853
		>>>>Gateway              fax:   +1 817 285 9567
		>>>>
		>>>>mailto:ted.wugofski@otmp.com
		>>>>http://www.gateway.com
		>>>>
		>>>>
		>>>
		>>>
		>>>
		>>------------------------------------------------------
		>>Michael A. Dolan, Representing DIRECTV,  (619)445-9070
		>>PO Box 1673 Alpine, CA 91903        FAX: (619)445-6122
		>>
		>>
		>
		>
		>
		------------------------------------------------------
		Michael A. Dolan, Representing DIRECTV,  (619)445-9070   
		PO Box 1673 Alpine, CA 91903        FAX: (619)445-6122

Received on Monday, 22 February 1999 12:08:09 UTC