Re: Proposal: C++ Language Binding for DOM Level 2 - in term of IDOM

[Andrew Snare <AS...@allshare.nl>]

At 08:31 AM 15/02/2002 -0800, you wrote:
>Hi,
>
>W3C DOM Recommendation has only defined JAVA and ECMAScript language 
>bindings.   For all other languages, W3C has links to binding owners' web 
>sites in <http://www.w3.org/DOM/Bindings>http://www.w3.org/DOM/Bindings.
>
>In order to populate Xerces-C++ IDOM as a formal C++ language binding to 
>more open source users, I would like to post the attached document to 
>Apache Xerces-C++ web site, and then send the URL to 
><http://www.w3.org/DOM/Bindings>http://www.w3.org/DOM/Bindings.

Hi,

It was my understanding that since the DOM interfaces are specified as IDL, 
it was intended that implementations use the appropriate CORBA language 
binding for implementing the DOM API.

Historically, the CORBA C++ binding was quite antiquated in terms of the 
C++ features it made use of. This is why things like namespaces and so 
forth were not used. From my use of the Xerces-C++ DOM API, it looks very 
CORBA-ish. I'm also aware of other DOM implementations (such as the python 
ones) having weird semantics in a few situations due to the CORBA mapping.

While I haven't looked into IDOM extensively, I understand that it's a much 
more 'natural' C++ API as far as language features go. Does this move 
(coupled with the core recommendations regarding Java/ECMAScript bindings) 
mean that there is no longer a push towards DOM being pure IDL and the 
language binding the same as the CORBA one?

ObApology: Pardon my ignorance, and please correct me, if the CORBA C++ API 
is now more modern than it used to be, and if the DOM/IDL/CORBA assumptions 
outlined above are incorrect.

  - Andrew




---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: xerces-c-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: xerces-c-dev-help@xml.apache.org