Re[5]: [cgmo-webcgm] Ecmascript binding question

[Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>]

At 09:45 PM 8/17/2004 -0400, Benoit Bezaire wrote:
>Tuesday, August 17, 2004, 5:30:08 PM, Lofton wrote:
>
>[...]
>LH> So as I understand you and Dieter's position, we will share a
>LH> common IDL definition of WDOM, and most or all stuff in the IDL
>LH> definition has a fairly obvious mapping to Ecmascript.
>I would add that we are willing to publish an ecmascript binding when
>going into Candidate Recommendation, although other individuals are
>more than welcome to do so.

Thinking some more about this thread... start of CR is fine with me, to 
publish an ecmascript binding specification (e.g., as an appendix to 
WDOM).   It solves the 3 potential problems that I foresaw, if CGMO were to 
take a never-ever approach.

It is probably safe to expect that the number of vendor-to-vendor 
differences (in their individually defined ecmascript APIs) will be very 
small and easy to correct/converge at CR.  (In W3C theory, start of CR is 
before widespread public uptake of the standard and widespread distribution 
of finished products).

-Lofton.