[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re[4]: [cgmo-webcgm] Ecmascript binding question
Hi Lofton, It's a question I've asked myself as well. I think the answer has to do with data types and inheritance. For example, what is the equivalent to DOMString or boolean? That could be different based on the language. The C language for example doesn't have either of those data types, so the mapping has to be clear. But for Ecmascript the mapping is clear (Boolean and String exist). -- Benoit mailto:benoit@itedo.com Friday, August 13, 2004, 11:30:11 AM, Lofton wrote: LH> 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? LH> I'm curious about something. If, as implied above, a correct ecmascript LH> syntax deriving from an IDL definition is unique and unambiguous, why did LH> SVG bother to define ecmascript [2] and java bindings, in addition to its LH> normative IDL [1]? LH> -Lofton. LH> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG11/idl.html LH> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG11/escript.html
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]