RE: Re[2]: [cgmo-webcgm] Ecmascript binding question

[Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>]

At 07:47 PM 8/12/2004 +0200, Dieter Weidenbrueck wrote:
>[...]
> >If there is not a standard ecmascript binding defined, then I will have to
> >create two versions of my ecmascript, one for each WebCGM plug-in with its
> >own defined ecmascript binding. This is not interoperable at all.
>Why not? What would be the difference between the viewers, if they
>implement their interfaces according to the IDL in the WDOM spec?
>
> >>>   IDL snippet:
> >>>   interface Attr : Node {
> >>>     readonly attribute DOMString        name;
> >>>     readonly attribute boolean          specified;
> >>>              attribute DOMString        value;
> >>>                                         // raises(DOMException) on
> >setting
> >>>
> >>>     // Introduced in DOM Level 2:
> >>>     readonly attribute Element          ownerElement;
> >>>   };
>
>It is absolutely clear how this should be implemented, or don't you think?
>Where could be differences that matter in a script residing on an HTML page?

I'm curious about something.  If, as implied above, a correct ecmascript 
syntax deriving from an IDL definition is unique and unambiguous, why did 
SVG bother to define ecmascript [2] and java bindings, in addition to its 
normative IDL [1]?

-Lofton.

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG11/idl.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG11/escript.html