The DOM: the realist and the implementer

Ray Whitmer ray at
Sun Jan 16 02:55:04 GMT 2000

Didier PH Martin wrote:

> Hi,
> The realist point of view:
> maybe, the W3C DOM WG sees the issue of impedance mismatch between
> components caused by the evolution of interfaces as an implementer issue. If
> that is the case, then let's create an XML-Dev recommendation.
> The implementer point of view:
> Yee, we did it for SAX, let's do it for DOM components.
> a) the first task is then to specify mechanism used by a DOM client to query
> a DOM provider about its DOM level support. The interfaces stay as the W3C
> workgroup defined it for each level.

What do you feel is needed beyond the current W3C DOM standard methods for querying the
levels and modules of support in a DOM implementation?

COM/DCOM is already anticipated to divide into separate interfaces for expansion, because
that is how that object model handles expansion.  Different models/bindings have the
freedom to expand in the way most suitable to the binding.  Don't expect every other
language to follow suite, for example in Javascript where expansion is simply done
directly to the object -- even if it is just COM objects supplying the implementation
because an IDispatch approach is taken to supply a non-segmented interface if I
understand it correctly.

Ray Whitmer
ray at

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at
Archived as: or CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
Please note: New list subscriptions now closed in preparation for transfer to OASIS.

More information about the Xml-dev mailing list