[XML-SIG] Ugh! Why are DOM access methods spelled with a leading
Mon, 26 Jun 2000 08:55:21 -0700
[this is a retry...mailman error at the bottom]
"Fred L. Drake, Jr." wrote:
> I don't recall the quoted text from the version of the
> recommendation I read, but it probably wasn't a recommendation at the
> time either! (And I may have just missed it.)
I don't recall it either. I think that the fact that the DOM IDL is
generated from XML is merely an implementation choice.
> We might end up with a different result, but would it be as
> (potentially) useful? I don't see how. If the IDL is normative (and
> I don't see anything saying otherwise as I look at the document), then
> it seems it must be supported to be compliant. Is the IDL
> non-normative, and I just missed the notation in the recommendation?
Let's be blunt: there is nothing about the DOM that is normative.
Extensions are encouraged, subsets are encouraged. Langauge-friendly,
non-CORBA language bindings are encouraged (and provided). Here's the
answer I got when I asked about the Java binding (3!) years ago:
> This is a good question, that we have wrestled with in the WG. Basically,
> we want to "hand code" the Java mapping because the IDL mapping is sure to
> be more obscure than we want, and add arguments that are relevant to CORBA
> RPC calls, but would be "overkill" for the DOM's primary purpose, i.e., a
> platform-independent API for dynamic scripting in HTML/XML browsers and
> In short, Java is such an important target, we want to "hand-tune" the
> binding to be maximally understandable and useable by our target audience.
> We are using the IDL as an abstract way of specifying interfaces, not as a
> way of defining distributed systems. Looking at the output of Sun's
> idltojava, it is very complex, and most of this complexity has nothing to
> do with what we are actually trying to accomplish. I think the best way to
> see this may be to download the idltojava program from Sun and compare its
> output with the code we created.
> Agreed, which is why I don't like seeing several mappings in the W3C
> recommendation. There should be only one, and the IDL is the right
> one for that. If any of the languages don't have IDL mappings, that
> should be dealt with by either creating an interim mapping that does
> just enough, or by writing a DOM-specific binding in a separate
more important than CORBA compliance. I think that the same goes for
Python. That's why I use and advocate attribute syntax.
Paul Prescod - Not encumbered by corporate consensus
"Ivory towers are no longer in order. We need ivory
networks. Today, sitting quietly and thinking is the
world's greatest generator of wealth and prosperity."
This is the Postfix program at host dinsdale.python.org.
I'm sorry to have to inform you that the message returned
below could not be delivered to one or more destinations.
For further assistance, please contact <email@example.com>
If you do so, please include this problem report. You can
delete your own text from the message returned below.
The Postfix program
<firstname.lastname@example.org>: Command died with status 1:
post xml-sig". Command output: Traceback (innermost last): File
"/home/mailman/scripts/post", line 33, in ? from Mailman import
MailList File "/home/mailman/Mailman/MailList.py", line 36, in
Mailman import LockFile MemoryError