Re[2]: [cgmo-webcgm] Required changes to IDL

[Benoit Bezaire <benoit@itedo.com>]

Hi Dave,

Yes, the SVG specification does prefix all interfaces with "SVG",
ex. interface SVGElement : Element {}

-- 
 Benoit   mailto:benoit@itedo.com

 
Monday, August 23, 2004, 5:23:08 PM, David wrote:

CDW> Benoit,

CDW> I agree with your approach.  Doesn't SVG prepend the
CDW> non-DOM standard interfaces with the string "SVG"?

CDW> thx...Dave

CDW> -----Original Message-----
CDW> From: Benoit Bezaire [mailto:benoit@itedo.com]
CDW> Sent: Monday, August 23, 2004 2:15 PM
CDW> To: CGM Open WebCGM TC
CDW> Cc: Ralf Berger
CDW> Subject: [cgmo-webcgm] Required changes to IDL


CDW> Hi all,

CDW>   I'm trying to generate a single complete IDL document (webcgm.idl).
CDW>   This exercise raises a few questions...  The IDL was obviously based
CDW>   on the W3C DOM and W3C SVG IDLs but we have some inconsistencies to
CDW>   resolve...

CDW>   We have the same definition as the W3C DOM Level 3 for DOMString and
CDW>   NodeList; but quite a number of differences for several
CDW>   interfaces such as Node, Attr, DOMStringList, Event etc...

CDW>   I'm wondering what to do about that?  I don't think it's a good idea
CDW>   for us to have a Node interface that is different from the W3C DOM
CDW>   Node interface while using the same name.  I think the group will get
CDW>   criticized for that.

CDW>   I believe we have three options:
CDW>   1) removing the name confusion by prefixing all datatypes and
CDW>   interfaces with "WebCGM"?  (ie; WebCGMString, WebCGMNode etc...)

CDW>   2) using DOM interfaces.

CDW>   3) ignoring the problem.

CDW>   My vote goes for 1) for the following reasons:
CDW>   - option 2 is unfortunately not really an option since we have
CDW>   demonstrated that the exact DOM approach is inappropriate for
CDW>   WebCGM.
CDW>   - ignoring the problem may be a possibility but creating a
CDW>   dependency on the W3C DOM by 'using' some of their datatypes and
CDW>   interfaces may be risky in the long run.
CDW>   - prefixing all datatypes and interfaces with "WebCGM" requires
CDW>   little effort from vendors in this early stage of development and in
CDW>   my opinion reduces confusion regarding the relationship of our DOM
CDW>   and other W3C DOM specifications.

CDW>   Comments on these changes would be appreciated.  Note: the complete
CDW>   IDL document (with the above changes) is attached to this email.