W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapi@w3.org > September 2006

Re: [selectors-api] DOM Level 3 Core + Selectors API

From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 15:57:33 +0900
Message-Id: <21D42D74-5B77-4D08-97A2-7D268BEF6610@w3.org>
Cc: "Web APIs WG (public)" <public-webapi@w3.org>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>

Hi Anne,

Le 19 sept. 06 à 19:56, Anne van Kesteren a écrit :
> On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 07:30:09 -0000, <karl@w3.org> wrote:
>> About http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-selectors-api-20060525/#issues
>>
>> We smiled at "It would be nice if extensibility was addressed by  
>> DOM Level 3 Core or a separate specification that all DOM  
>> specifications could reuse."
>> 		http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/#extensions
>>
>> Yes indeed that would be a good thing. Because right now it makes  
>> difficult to make a conformant DOM Level 3 Core implementations  
>> which includes Selectors API.
>> 	http://www.w3.org/TR/DOM-Level-3-Core/introduction.html#ID- 
>> Conformance
>>
>> 	which might be incompatible with.
>> 	
>> 	[[[Objects implementing the Document interface defined in DOM  
>> Level 3 Core must also implement the DocumentSelector interface  
>> [DOM3Core].]]]
>> 	http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-selectors-api-20060525/ 
>> #documentselector
>> 	
>> 	Testing and analysing conformance dependencies will be a good thing.
>
> So given that we don't want to depend too much on DOM Level 3 Core  
> being updated I changed it to the following based on group discussion:
>
>    Extensions of the APIs defined in this specification
>    are strongly discouraged. User Agents, Working Groups
>    and other interested parties should discuss extensions
>    on a relevant public forum, such as
>    public-webapi@w3.org.
>
> I think it's the best we can do.


Is it compatible with

[[[
Extensibility

Extensions to the DocumentSelector interface are reserved for future  
work by the Web APIs WG. WGs besides the Web APIs WG may extend the  
interface, but must coordinate that with the Web APIs WG. UAs may  
extend the interface, but must prefix the new members using a string  
specific to the vendor following the VendorMember scheme. (Normally  
members follow the member scheme.) FooSetDefaultNamespace(ns) would  
be an example for company Foo.

Authors may use extension mechanisms specific to the host language,  
like .prototype in ECMAScript.
]]] -- Selectors API
        http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-selectors-api-20060525/ 
#extensibility
        Wed, 24 May 2006 16:20:19 GMT

I agree with your sentence, but please be sure to have the same prose  
in both sections or to refer to extensibility section.

Thanks.

-- 
Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager, QA Activity Lead
   QA Weblog - http://www.w3.org/QA/
      *** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
Received on Wednesday, 27 September 2006 06:57:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:18:55 GMT