[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Language politics and DOM bindings
Uche Ogbuji wrote: > > I can't say authoritatively, but I believe that the > > DOM WG members would see an official Python binding as a "good thing" ... as > > long as someone was willing to do the work required. I think the mechanism > > defined by the W3C Process to do this kind of thing is to make a > > "Submission". See > > > http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/Process-19991111/submission.html#Submission > > Thanks for the ref, but as you suggest, it seems to allow only submissions > by W3C members. I don't know if the XML SIG has anyone working for such > an organization. It's quite possible that someone either works for such an organization, or knows someone who works for such an organization; there's a list of the member organizations at http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Member/List > > The DOM WG actually considered committing itself to do a C++ binding, and to > > the best of my recollection the memory management issue was the largest nail > > in that idea's coffin. I'm not completely sure, and don't care to > > second-guess exactly why that decision was made ... in retrospect, you may > > well be right that memory management shouldn't have been a consideration. > > I'm willing to bet it was DOM WG laziness. In C++, memory management is a > matter of adhering to Bjarne Stroustroup's simple and effective rule that > "resource aqcuisition is initialization". My memory is that it wasn't solely a memory management issue; it was more that nobody volunteered to do all the work of figuring out a C+ binding that would take into account things including memory management, and the fact that COM and non-COM systems have different requirements. Since I was chair of the DOM WG at the time, I can tell you that it wasn't that we were being lazy. With hindsight, maybe we should have taken an extra 2-4 months to figure out the C++ bindings for Level 1; at the time we were being yelled at for taking too long any way and any extra time for another binding would have been hard to justify without *somebody* standing up and saying it was necessary. I can't remember anyone at the time (late 1998) saying that a C++ or Python binding was necessary for Level 1. Now, of course, doing a C++ binding would be extremely difficult, since there are lots of DOM implementations that use C++ that look different to each other. Even if the DOM WG were now to develop a C++ binding, I wouldn't keep my hopes up that many people would implement it. > > So, it's not a matter of the "W3C" agreeing or disagreeing with any of this, > > it's mainly a matter of whether any members commit the resources to help > > make it happen. As near as I can tell, that's how the W3C "draws the line" > > between what gets done and what doesn't. > > I disagree. I would likely volunteer to write a Python binding (Fred > Drake, Paul Prescod and I, among others have already done a good deal of > the work), but we're not W3C members. Then I suggest you email the chair of the DOM WG (Phillipe Le Hégaret, W3C) and ask that he discuss the issue with the DOM WG, pointing out that you will do the work. You might like to also point out whether this offer of doing Python bindings extends to all modules in Levels 2 and 3 as well as Level 1. I'm no longer on the DOM WG, so I don't know how this suggestion would be taken. Also, I don't know enough about the Python bindings to know whether the same problem shows up there as in Perl. The problem with defining a single Perl binding is that the XML::DOM module uses a Java-style binding (e.g., getFirstChild), while those implementations which use the Microsoft Automation system tend to use an ECMA Script-style binding (e.g., firstChild). Is there a similar issue in Python? If the entire Python community uses a single binding, then it won't be as much of a problem as if there are differences. If there are differences, the biggest amount of work would be to get the Python community using the bindings to figure out what they want. Lauren
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|