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

[Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>]

I forgot to include this.  The SVG IDL [1] says, "The different standard 
language bindings for the SVG DOM are responsible for defining how to map 
all aspects of the SVG DOM into the given language, [...]."


At 09:30 AM 8/13/2004 -0600, Lofton Henderson wrote:
>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
>
>
>