Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: Ray Whitmer <email@example.com>
- To: Didier PH Martin <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 20:12:46 -0700
Didier PH Martin wrote:
> The realist point of view:
> maybe, the W3C DOM WG sees the issue of impedance mismatch between
> components caused by the evolution of interfaces as an implementer issue. If
> that is the case, then let's create an XML-Dev recommendation.
> The implementer point of view:
> Yee, we did it for SAX, let's do it for DOM components.
> a) the first task is then to specify mechanism used by a DOM client to query
> a DOM provider about its DOM level support. The interfaces stay as the W3C
> workgroup defined it for each level.
What do you feel is needed beyond the current W3C DOM standard methods for querying the
levels and modules of support in a DOM implementation?
COM/DCOM is already anticipated to divide into separate interfaces for expansion, because
that is how that object model handles expansion. Different models/bindings have the
freedom to expand in the way most suitable to the binding. Don't expect every other
directly to the object -- even if it is just COM objects supplying the implementation
because an IDispatch approach is taken to supply a non-segmented interface if I
understand it correctly.
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:email@example.com
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ or CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
Please note: New list subscriptions now closed in preparation for transfer to OASIS.