- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2010 18:27:30 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8800 Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED Resolution|NEEDSINFO | --- Comment #3 from Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> 2010-03-14 18:27:29 --- (In reply to comment #2) > EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are > satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If > you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please > reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML > Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest > title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue > yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document: > http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html > > Status: Did Not Understand Request > Change Description: no spec change > Rationale: When I studied the APIs, I found them to be very complicated and > over-engineered, as much as the drag-and-drop events. I'm not yet convinced > that speccing the dnd events as we did is proving to be a good thing. I propose > that we wait to see what happens with those before doing the same with the > copy/paste events. Would that be acceptable? If this API was purely optional for implementors, that would be fine. But from the list of popular sites I found to be using these events, it seems that implementing them is required to successfully process public Web content. I would be ok with marking these events as obsolete if you don't think they should be used, though I am not sure of the practical effect of making DOM APIs or events obsolete. -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Sunday, 14 March 2010 18:27:31 UTC