CDR user agent conformance; DOM shouldn't be mandatory

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
6 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

CDR user agent conformance; DOM shouldn't be mandatory

Mark Baker

For the reasons given in [1] (member-only link), I'd like to see the
user agent conformance section relax the requirement on user agents to
implement the DOM.  I'm happy to see something saying "If the DOM is
exposed, then it MUST at least implement Level 3 etc.." though.

In addition to the reasons in [1], the document already says things
like this, suggesting that mandatory support isn't required;

"Compound document profiles which leverage the Compound Document
Framework and **which support scripting** must have scripting
interfaces that are compatible with the DOM Level 3 Core
Specification."
 -- sec 2.1 (emphasis mine)

"User agents, which support a DOM, must provide access to child documents."
 -- sec 2.1.3

 [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-cdf/2005Dec/0078

Mark.
--
Mark Baker.  Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.       http://www.markbaker.ca
Coactus; Web-inspired integration strategies  http://www.coactus.com

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: CDR user agent conformance; DOM shouldn't be mandatory

Bjoern Hoehrmann

* Mark Baker wrote:
>For the reasons given in [1] (member-only link), I'd like to see the
>user agent conformance section relax the requirement on user agents to
>implement the DOM.  I'm happy to see something saying "If the DOM is
>exposed, then it MUST at least implement Level 3 etc.." though.

As there must be public record of all substantive review comments,
could you make that public please?
--
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:[hidden email] · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ 

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: CDR user agent conformance; DOM shouldn't be mandatory

Mark Baker

Good point.  The reason is basically just that I believe a mistake was
made with how an earlier (internal) issue was resolved.  But I suppose
that the other reasons I gave should be able to stand by themselves.

Mark.

On 1/23/06, Bjoern Hoehrmann <[hidden email]> wrote:

> * Mark Baker wrote:
> >For the reasons given in [1] (member-only link), I'd like to see the
> >user agent conformance section relax the requirement on user agents to
> >implement the DOM.  I'm happy to see something saying "If the DOM is
> >exposed, then it MUST at least implement Level 3 etc.." though.
>
> As there must be public record of all substantive review comments,
> could you make that public please?
> --
> Björn Höhrmann · mailto:[hidden email] · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
> Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
> 68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
>


--
Mark Baker.  Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.       http://www.markbaker.ca
Coactus; Web-inspired integration strategies  http://www.coactus.com

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: CDR user agent conformance; DOM shouldn't be mandatory

Maciej Stachowiak
In reply to this post by Mark Baker


On Jan 23, 2006, at 9:03 AM, Mark Baker wrote:

>
> For the reasons given in [1] (member-only link), I'd like to see the
> user agent conformance section relax the requirement on user agents to
> implement the DOM.  I'm happy to see something saying "If the DOM is
> exposed, then it MUST at least implement Level 3 etc.." though.
>
> In addition to the reasons in [1], the document already says things
> like this, suggesting that mandatory support isn't required;
>
> "Compound document profiles which leverage the Compound Document
> Framework and **which support scripting** must have scripting
> interfaces that are compatible with the DOM Level 3 Core
> Specification."
>  -- sec 2.1 (emphasis mine)
>
> "User agents, which support a DOM, must provide access to child  
> documents."
>  -- sec 2.1.3

Would the CDR spec then make any requirements whatsoever of a user  
agent? Everything it has that even resembles a requirement on a user  
agent depends on the UA having a DOM. The only sections that could  
even possibly apply to non-DOM UAs (2.3, 2.4) are marke "This section  
is informative." Of course, as written, the spec already makes no  
substantive requirements of UAs or anything else, but that has at  
least some hope of being fixed.

Regards,
Maciej


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: CDR user agent conformance; DOM shouldn't be mandatory

Mark Baker

Maciej,

On 1/31/06, Maciej Stachowiak <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Would the CDR spec then make any requirements whatsoever of a user
> agent? Everything it has that even resembles a requirement on a user
> agent depends on the UA having a DOM. The only sections that could
> even possibly apply to non-DOM UAs (2.3, 2.4) are marke "This section
> is informative." Of course, as written, the spec already makes no
> substantive requirements of UAs or anything else, but that has at
> least some hope of being fixed.

I understand and sympathize with your general concern, but to clarify
for this specific issue, are you saying that you believe that UAs
should be required to support the DOM?

Thanks.

Mark.
--
Mark Baker.  Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.       http://www.markbaker.ca

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: CDR user agent conformance; DOM shouldn't be mandatory

Maciej Stachowiak


On Jan 31, 2006, at 9:32 PM, Mark Baker wrote:

> Maciej,
>
> On 1/31/06, Maciej Stachowiak <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Would the CDR spec then make any requirements whatsoever of a user
>> agent? Everything it has that even resembles a requirement on a user
>> agent depends on the UA having a DOM. The only sections that could
>> even possibly apply to non-DOM UAs (2.3, 2.4) are marke "This section
>> is informative." Of course, as written, the spec already makes no
>> substantive requirements of UAs or anything else, but that has at
>> least some hope of being fixed.
>
> I understand and sympathize with your general concern, but to clarify
> for this specific issue, are you saying that you believe that UAs
> should be required to support the DOM?

I am saying that I do not understand your proposal. In its normative  
sections, the CDR spec defines DOM interfaces and DOM event dispatch  
for particular uses. That's it. There is nothing in any of the  
normative sections that could apply to a non-DOM UA. This is like  
asking that DOM Level 3 Events not require a UA to support the DOM.

Or do you have some specific proposal for requirements on non-DOM UAs?

Regards,
Maciej