[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Required changes to IDL
Hi all, I'm trying to generate a single complete IDL document (webcgm.idl). This exercise raises a few questions... The IDL was obviously based on the W3C DOM and W3C SVG IDLs but we have some inconsistencies to resolve... We have the same definition as the W3C DOM Level 3 for DOMString and NodeList; but quite a number of differences for several interfaces such as Node, Attr, DOMStringList, Event etc... I'm wondering what to do about that? I don't think it's a good idea for us to have a Node interface that is different from the W3C DOM Node interface while using the same name. I think the group will get criticized for that. I believe we have three options: 1) removing the name confusion by prefixing all datatypes and interfaces with "WebCGM"? (ie; WebCGMString, WebCGMNode etc...) 2) using DOM interfaces. 3) ignoring the problem. My vote goes for 1) for the following reasons: - option 2 is unfortunately not really an option since we have demonstrated that the exact DOM approach is inappropriate for WebCGM. - ignoring the problem may be a possibility but creating a dependency on the W3C DOM by 'using' some of their datatypes and interfaces may be risky in the long run. - prefixing all datatypes and interfaces with "WebCGM" requires little effort from vendors in this early stage of development and in my opinion reduces confusion regarding the relationship of our DOM and other W3C DOM specifications. Comments on these changes would be appreciated. Note: the complete IDL document (with the above changes) is attached to this email. -- Benoit mailto:benoit@itedo.com
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]