Sean Kelly wrote: > > Ah, so the DOM is specified in IDL, as in OMG's IDL?
Yes. > I didn't know that. I'm always amazed to find out how so few people ever read the specs. Which doesn't stop some from forming opinions and be vocal about it... (that's not intended to you in particular btw!) I suggest you have a look at the spec, see http://www.w3.org/TR Specs rule! I guess I'm at the other extreme. I never buy any book, I only use specs online... (I basically have a paper-free office! ;-) > If I had the ear of some committee members, You have it. I'm the IBM primary representative in the DOM Working Group. And if you subscribe to the public mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] you'll have all the other DOM WG members ears as well! > I'd try to > convince them to stop using IDL to specify DOM and use > UML instead. You're welcome to try on www-dom. I don't remember anybody ever trying (and I've been on the DOM WG from its beginning). > (The lack of a standard mapping from UML > to various implementation languages would then be the > next problem, though. Hmm.) Not sure. We don't actually use any IDL converter. Or rather we have our own. That's because IDL converters are designed to produce code suitable for CORBA. The DOM only uses IDL as a formalism to define an API in a language independent way. -- Arnaud Le Hors - IBM Cupertino, XML Technology Group
