DOM-TV (was RE: ATVEF uri )

<readying myself for slinging arrows>

The current DOMs, whether we acknowledge that DOM-0 exists, DOM-1, and
the now-in-draft-stage DOM-2, are *not* sufficient for enhanced
television.

If we assume that HTML will be used on television in the same manner as
HTML is used on computer screens, then these DOMs will suffice.  But...

I do not think HTML will be used the same way when creating enhanced
television content.  There will certainly be changes to the event model,
there is likely to be a stronger multimedia component (SYMM-related
stuff), there will likely be a different user agent paradigm (i.e., no
browser with a forward/backward/bookmark button).  In addition, the
content model might change in order to reduce complexity/increase
robustness of the receiver.

Therefore, I strongly believe that there will be a DOM-TV.  What that
DOM is, I don't know yet.  I do know, however, that it will considerably
overlap with DOM-1 and DOM-2.  

In my recent review of DOM-0 (similar to Mr. Adams survey), it became
clear to me that starting from DOM-0 is not a good idea (to be polite):
its a non-standard, it overlaps with DOM-1 and DOM-2 which are or will
be standards, and it DOM-0 will still need to be extended.

DOM-0 is undefined and poorly designed.  Mixing DOM-0 and DOM-1 and
DOM-2 is a disaster waiting to happen.  They have objects and interfaces
with similar names but different properties and methods.

My recommendation is that the basis for a DOM-TV be DOM-1 and DOM-2.
They are (or will be) standards with a clearly defined specification.

Addressing Mr. Dolan's comment that DOM-1 is too much, I beg to differ.
DOM-1 is considerably less than DOM-0.  DOM-1 does not provide access to
the Event model, User Agent, or CSS.  

There is redundant functionality of the DOM-1 HTML interfaces with the
DOM-1 Core interfaces.  The HTML interfaces are HTML-specific
simplifications of features accessible through the XML-based Core
interfaces.  A receiver manufacturer could choose to only support the
HTML interfaces (which are certainly lighter weight) or they could
choose to only support the Core interfaces (which provide a complete
solution). The issue then becomes code-reuse and training.

Ted



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael A. Dolan [mailto:miked@tbt.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 22, 1999 8:55 AM
> To: Rob Glidden; Adams, Glenn
> Cc: Ted Wugofski; www-tv@w3.org; 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.
> 
> We can call it DOM0v2, or DOM0.5, or DOM-TV-0
> 
> 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 Tuesday, 23 February 1999 21:59:29 UTC