OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Place under sun (was: XPointer and Sun patent)

Title: RE: Place under sun (was: XPointer and Sun patent)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Uche Ogbuji [mailto:uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com]
> Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2001 6:52 PM
> To: Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com
> Cc: xml-dev@xml.org
> Subject: Re: Place under sun (was: XPointer and Sun patent)
> Let me first ask this: The Python XML SIG has put together a
> Python/DOM binding.  What would be the process for us to sublit it to
> the DOM WG in order to give it standing according to the W3C,
> and preferably listing
> alongside the Java and ECMAScript bindings?

If someone in the Python SIG is a W3C member, they can request membership in the DOM Working Group to do just that.  If not, ask for "invited expert" status to contribute. I can't say authoritatively, but I believe that the DOM WG members would see an official Python binding as a "good thing" ... as long as someone was willing to do the work required.  I think the mechanism defined by the W3C Process to do this kind of thing is to make a "Submission".  See


> Perl, C, C++, VBScript, PHP3, Python,... are also "definitely part of
> the Web infrastructure".  Do you dispute that?  Does the W3C?

I completely agree that all these languages are part of the Web infrastructure and that the DOM would be "better" if it had official bindings for all of them.

(The original post in this thread mentioned COBOL and Ada ... them too?? How about FORTRAN? PL/I? where does one draw the line?)

The DOM WG actually considered committing itself to do a C++ binding, and to the best of my recollection the memory management issue was the largest nail in that idea's coffin.  I'm not completely sure, and don't care to second-guess exactly why that decision was made ... in retrospect, you may well be right that memory management shouldn't have been a consideration.

The definite fact of the matter is that nobody active in the W3C at that time (1997) expressed a strong desire for any of these bindings that was backed up by an offer to help out with the work required to define the language specific bindings, write the scripts to convert the IDL definition of the DOM to the binding, implement and test the binding before the Recommendation came out, write the documentation, maintain the FAQs, respond to the inevitable flames on public mailing lists, etc.  As I recall, I was in favor (in the abstract) of supporting C++ as well as Java ... but couldn't commit to doing all that work.

So, it's not a matter of the "W3C" agreeing or disagreeing with any of this, it's mainly a matter of whether any members commit the resources to help make it happen.  As near as I can tell, that's how the W3C "draws the line" between what gets done and what doesn't.