W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-geolocation@w3.org > March 2012

Re: Firing events in the deviceorientation spec

From: Lars Erik Bolstad <lbolstad@opera.com>
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2012 08:55:19 +0100
Message-ID: <4F59B767.7020802@opera.com>
To: Andrei Popescu <andreip@google.com>
CC: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>, public-geolocation@w3.org
On 08.03.2012 16:09, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 2:39 PM, Anne van Kesteren<annevk@opera.com>  wrote:
>> On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 15:30:47 +0100, Andrei Popescu<andreip@google.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Sure, but we're running out of charter. I don't think we can renew the
>>> charter just because we have to tweak the IDL and references....I'm
>>> still not sure I understand what you're proposing we do.
>> You can, but apart from that:
>> * Define how this feature works with the event loop
>> * Remove the init*Event() methods that have been obsoleted and must not be
>> introduced now
>> Now ideally you also define the appropriate event constructors, because
>> implementors will want to implement them, and developers will want to use
>> them.
>> I'm not sure what reference game you're playing, but there is nothing in the
>> W3C Process document that prevents a W3C Recommendation referencing drafts.
> We're not playing any games. What you're saying conflicts with the
> information here:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-geolocation/2011Feb/0022.html
>> And to define the actual feature a normative reference to HTML is required,
>> which in turn depends on DOM. So I'm not really sure why you keep playing
>> the ball back to me instead of explaining how any of that makes sense.
> Sorry, there's some confusion here: the assumption behind this thread
> was that there is something that prevents a W3C Recommendation from
> referencing drafts, whereas you say there is nothing like that :)
> Perhaps the best avenue here is what James suggests: obtain permission
> to advance despite the dependencies. I'm not sure how easy that is to
> do, though.
> Thanks,
> Andrei

Well, I can check.

Lars Erik
Received on Friday, 9 March 2012 07:56:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:33:58 UTC